HOST PATHOGEN RELATIONSHIPS AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF SOME STORAGE ROTS OF SWEETPOTATO (IPOMEA BATATAS (L.) LAM)

  • 0 Review(s)

Product Category: Projects

Product Code: 00009752

No of Pages: 182

No of Chapters: 1-5

File Format: Microsoft Word

Price :

₦10000

  • $

Abstract

Sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam) is a valuable root crop widely consumed in Nigeria. However, its postharvest losses due to storage rots significantly affect its market value and nutritional quality. This study investigated the host-pathogen interactions and biological control strategies against fungal pathogens associated with sweetpotato storage rots. Surveys were conducted in four Local Government Areas (LGAs) in Kwara State to identify the incidence and severity of sweetpotato root rot across farm communities and markets. Rotted sweetpotato samples were collected and subjected to isolation and identification of the causative fungal pathogens. The most frequently occurring pathogens were Botryodiplodia theobromae, Rhizopus stolonifer, Aspergillus tamarii, and Aspergillus ochraceus, with B. theobromae identified as the most virulent. Pathogenicity tests confirmed their role in postharvest deterioration. Biochemical analysis revealed significant reductions in protein, fat, carbohydrate, crude fibre, and mineral content in infected roots, indicating the nutritional degradation caused by these pathogens. The biocontrol potential of four antagonistic fungi—Trichoderma harzianum, Penicillium oxalicum, P. chrysogenum, and P. citrinum—was evaluated both in vitro and in vivo. Culture filtrates of these bioagents significantly inhibited the radial mycelial growth of the pathogens on potato dextrose agar and also suppressed rot development in stored sweetpotato roots. The efficacy of the bioagents was comparable to that of benomyl, a synthetic fungicide. Among the antagonists, T. harzianum exhibited the most effective biocontrol activity, followed by P. chrysogenum. The study also compared different storage methods and found that storage on racks in ventilated rooms and sawdust heaps was more effective in extending shelf life and reducing rot than pit storage. The findings underscore the potential of using eco-friendly biocontrol agents for managing storage rots of sweetpotato, especially among resource-limited farmers. The use of crude filtrates from T. harzianum and Penicillium spp. provides an affordable and sustainable alternative to chemical fungicides. It is recommended that further chemical profiling of the antagonists’ metabolites be conducted to explore the development of biopesticide formulations. Additionally, the adoption of improved storage practices is essential to minimize postharvest losses, preserve sweetpotato quality, and enhance food security in Nigeria.

Keywords:        Sweetpotato, storage rot, fungal pathogens, biological control, Trichoderma harzianum

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1.      Background to the Study

1.2    Statement of the Problem

1.3    Justification of the Study

1.4    Objectives of the Study

 

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1         Origin and Distribution of Sweetpotato

2.2         Botany of the Crop

2.3         Importance of Sweet Potato

2.3.1      Medicinal importance

2.3.2      Economic importance

2.3.3      Food and nutritional values

2.4         Sweetpotato Production

2.5         Soil and Climatic Requirements

2.6         Harvesting and Storage of Sweetpotato Root

2.6.1      Harvesting of sweetpotato

2.6.2      Postharvest handling of sweetpotato roots

2.6.3      Storage of sweetpotato roots

2.6.3.1 Types of fresh sweetpotato root storage

2.7         Constraints To Economic Production Of Sweet Potato

2.8         Post Harvest Microbial Deterioration Of Sweetpotato Root

2.8.1      Rot types and symptoms and predisposing factors of stored sweetpotato  root

2.8.2      Sweetpotato root rots and causal agents

2.9         Characteristic Features Of Some Fungal Pathogens With Storage Rot Of Sweetpotato

2.9.1      Botrydoplodia theobromae Pat. (1892) (Synonym: Lasiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.) Griffin & Maubi 1909).

2.9.2      Rhizopus stolonifer Vuillemin (1902) (Synonym: Rhizopus nigrican Ehrenberg, 1820)

2.9.3      Aspergillus ochraceus (Wilhelm, 1877) [synomyms: A. alutaceus (Berkeley 1875); Sterigmatocystis helva (Bainer, 1881)]

2.9.4      Aspergillus tamarii (Kita, 1913).

2.10       Control Of Rots Of Sweet Potato Tubers In Storage

2.10.1    Cultural control (Good agronomic practices, field sanitation and store hygiene).

2.10.2    Thermal and physical control

2.10.3    Use of resistant varieties in sweet potato root rot control

2.10.4    Chemical control of rots of sweetpotato roots

2.10.5    Use of botanicals in the control of root and tuber rots

2.10.6    Biological control of rots of roots and tubers

2.11       Biological Control Agents Used

2.11.1    Trichoderma harzianum (Rifia, 1969) (Syn. T. lignorum var. narcissi Trochinai and Shimada) Pidopi (1953)

2.11.2    Penicillium oxalicum (Currie JN; Thom. C, 1915)

2.12       Mechanism Of Action Of Biological Control Agents

2.12.1    Antagonism

2.12.2    Antibiosis

2.12.3    Competition

2.12.4    Resistance induction

2.12.5    Parasitism

2.12.6    Metabolite production

2.12.7    Lysis

 

CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1    Experimental Site

3.2    Survey Of Storage Root Rot Of Sweetpotato In Some Local Government Areas Of Kwara State

3.3    Source Of Tubers

3.4    Preparation Of Culture Media

3.4.1 Preparation Of Potato Dextrose Agar (Pda)

3.4.2 Preparation Of Potato And Agro-Waste Broths      

3.5    Isolation And Identification Of Fungal Pathogens Associated With Sweetpotato Root Rot In Storage

3.5.1 Isolation Of Pathogenic Organisms

3.5.2 Pathogenicity Test And Identification Of Pathogens

3.6    Isolation And Identification Of Bio-Control Agents

3.7    Biochemical Composition Of Healthy And Infected Sweetpotato Roots

3.7.1 Sample Preparation

3.7.2 Determination Of Moisture Contents

3.7.3 Determination Of Ash Content

3.7.4 Crude Fibre Determination

3.7.5 Fat Content Determination

3.7.6 Protein Determination

3.7.7 Determination Of Carbohydrate Contents

3.7.8 Determination Of Mineral Contents Of Sweetpotato Roots

3.8    In Vitro Experiments

3.8.1 Effects Of The Antagonists On Spore Germination Of Pathogenic Organisms.

3.8.2 Effects Of The Bio-Antagonists On The Radial Growth Of The Test Fungi

3.8.3 Effects Of The Fungal Antagonists On Mycelial Biomass Of The Pathogenic Organisms.

3.9    Determination Of Inhibitory Factors Of The Antagonists

3.9.1 Determination Of Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (Mic) Of The Antagonists

3.9.2 Determination Of Minimum Fungicidal Concentration (Mfc)

3.10 In Vivo Experments

3.10.1 Evaluation Of Effects Of Biocontrol Agents On Rot Development And Spread In

         Sweetpotato Root.

3.11  Evaluation Of Effects Of Different Storage Methods On Rot Development Of Sweetpotato Root Rot Caused By Pathogens

3.12  Evaluation Of Different Agro-Waste Products As Sustainable Growth Media For The Bio-Control Fungi

3.13 Histological Studies Of Infected Sweetpotato Roots

3.14  Data Analysis

 

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1         Results

4.1.1      On-farm survey of postharvest root rot of sweetpotato varieties in

              Kwara State

4.1.1.1   Sweetpotato varieties in the local government areas

4.1.1.2   Sweetpotato root rot incidence and severity after harvest in different locations

4.1.2      Fungi associated with storage rot of sweetpotato roots

4.1.3      Pathogenic organisms of stored sweetpotato root

4.1.4      Characteristic features of pathogenic organisms causing root rot of sweetpotato in storage

4.1.4.1   Botryodiplodia theobromae Pat. (Syn. Lasidiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.) Griffon and Maubi) (Plates 4.1-4.2)

4.1.4.2   Rhizopus stolonifer

4.1.4.3   Aspergillus tamari Kita G. (1913)

4.1.4.4   Aspergillus ochraceus (Wilhem 1877)

4.1.5      Characteristic features of bioagents

4.1.6      Effect of pathogens on the biochemical compositionof sweetpotato root in storage

4.1.6.1   Effects of pathogen on nutrient content of sweetpotato roots

4.1.6.2   Effect of pathogens on mineral composition of stored sweetpotato roots

4.1.7      Effects of the bio-agents on the growth of the pathogens in vitro

4.1.7.1   Effect of the bio-agents on spore germination of pathogens in culture

4.1.7.2   Effect of bio-agents on mycelial radial growth of pathogens in culture

4.1.7.3   Effect of the bioagents on mycelia biomass of the pathogens in culture

4.1.9      Minimum inhibitory concentration of biogent filterates (MIC) and minimum      fungicidal concentration (MFC) against pathogenic organisms of sweet potato

4.1.10    Effect of bioagents on rot development and spread in sweetpotato root in storage (in vivo experiment)

4.1.11    Bioactive compounds of bioagents

4.1.12    Effects of the different agro-wastes on growth and sporulation of bio-agents

4.1.13    Effects of storage sytems on shelf-life of sweet potato roots

4.1.14    Histological distortion of sweetpotato root tissues by pathogenic organisms during pathogenesis

4.2         Discussion

 

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1    Conclusion

5.2    Recommendations  

References

Appendix 1:Morphological characteristics of the identified fungal rot pathogens isolated from

the sweet potato tubers

Appendix 2: Inoculated sweetpotato root specimens in micro-climate condition for pathogenicity test.

APPENDIX 3: Agricultural substrates inoculated for mass production of antagonistic organisms metabolites.

APPENDIX 4: Effects of storage systems of rot development on sweet potato

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

 

Table 4.1:     Sweetpotato root rot incidence and severity (2-4) weeks after harvest in different locations.

Table 4.2:     Frequency of occurrence of fungal isolates of stored sweetpotato root in Ilorin

Table 4.3:     Morphological characteristics of the bioagents

Table 4.4      Effects of pathogens on nutrient composition of sweet potato root in storage data are means of three replicates in            two separate           experiments.

Table 4.5      Effects of the bio-agents on spore germination of the rot pathogens of sweetpotato root

Table 4.6      Effects of the bio-agents on radial growth of the rot pathogens of           sweetpotato in culture

Table 4.7:     Minimum inhibitory concentration (mic) and minimum fungicidal concentration (mfc) (ul/mg)

Table 4.8:     Effects of Antagonistic filtrates against rot-development and spread in 3 months sweetpotato root storage

Table 4.9      Phenolic and flavonoid compounds of bio-antagonists filterates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

 

Figure 4.1:    Frequency of occurrence of sweetpotato root varieties in 12 surveyed farms

Figure 4.2:    Severity index of major pathogenic organisms of sweetpotato root in storage

Figure 4.3     Effects of different concentrates of Penicillium oxalicum on biomass accumulation of rot-inducing pathogens of sweetpotato root

Figure 4.4     Effects of different concentrates of Trichoderma harzianum on    

                     biomass accumulation of rot-inducing pathogens of sweetpotato root

Figure 4.5     Effects of different concentrates of Penicillium chrysogenum on biomass accumulation of rot-inducing pathogens of sweetpotato root

Figure 4.6     Effects of different concentrates of Penicillium citrinum on biomass accumulation of rot-inducing pathogens of sweetpotato roots

Figure 4.7:    Effects of agro-substrate on growth and sporulation of Penicillium oxalicum

Figure 4.8:    Effects of agro-substrate on growth and sporulation of Trichoderma harzianum

Figure 4.9:    Effects of agro-substrate on growth and sporulation of Penicillium  chrysogenum

Figure 4.10: Effects of agro-substrate on growth and sporulation of Penicillium citrinum

Figure 4.11: Effects of different storage systems on disease incidence and severity of sweetpotato root rot

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 4.1       Sweetpotato root rot due to Botryodiplodia theobromae

Plate 4.2:      Pure Culture of Botryodiplodia theobromae (10-day old) grown on PDA

Plate 4.3:      Photomicrograph of Botryodiplodia theobromae Pat.

Plate 4.4:      Sweetpotato root rot induced by Rhizopus stolonifer during pathogenicity tests

Plate 4.5:      Pure Culture of Rhizopus stolonifer (10 day old) grown on PDA medium

Plate 4.6       Photomicrograph of Rhizopus stolonifer

Plate 4.7:      Sweetpotato root rot incited by Aspergillus tamarii during pathogenicity tests

Plate 4.8:      Pure Culture of Aspergillus tamarii (7-day old) grown on PDA medium

Plate 4.9:      Photomicrograph of Aspergillus tamarii

Plate 4.10:    Sweetpotato root rot incited by Aspergillus ochraceus during pathogenicity tests

Plate 4.11:    Pure Culture of Aspergillus ochraceus (10-day old) grown on PDA medium

Plate 4.12:    Photomicrograph of Aspergillus ochraceus

Plate 4.13:    Pure Culture of Penicillium chrysogenum grown on PDA medium

Plate 4.14:    Photomicograph of Penicillium chrysogenum

Plate 4.15:    Pure Culture of Penicillium citrinum grown on PDA medium

Plate 4.16:    Photomicrograph of Penicillium citrinum

Plate 4.17:    Pure Culture of Penicillium oxalicum grown on PDA medium

Plate 4.18:    Photomicrograph of Penicillium oxalicum

Plate 4.19:    Pure Culture of Trichoderma harzianum grown on PDA medium

Plate 4.20:    Photomicgraph of Trichoderma harzianum

Plate 4.21:    Photomicograph of healthy and B. theobroma-infected sweetpotato roots after 3 months storage

Plate 4.23:    Anatomy of healthy and A. tamarii infected sweetpotato root

 

 

 

 



 

 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION


1.1. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam) commonly known as Louisiana yam is a member of the family Convolvulaceae (morning glory family) which is made up of 45 genera and 1,000 plant species. Ipomoea batatas is the only member of this family that is of economic importance to man and livestock (Woolfe, 1992). Louisiana yam is a dicotyledonous, storage root crop reported to have originated from South America (Yildirim et al., 2011). Today, however, the crop is grown throughout Africa, Europe and the Americas. Though a perennial plant with long trailing and slender green or purple vines; sweetpotato is considered an annual in agronomy adaptable to different agro-ecological conditions (Burt, 2008) including extremely adverse environmental conditions of arid zones (Ahmad et al., 2014). It has a shorter growth period than most other root crops (3-5 months) and shows no marked seasonality (DAFF, 2011).

 Sweetpotato produced in 2007 was more than 165 million metric tonnes (MT), among the staple food crops in developing countries as rice, maize, wheat, maize and cassava, sweet potato ranks fifth in the order of importance relative to fresh weight (Scott and Maldonado, 1998). Statistics in 2012 revealed that the total world production of the crop stood at 364 million MT (FAOSTAT, 2016) and China with about 96 million MT per annum is reported as the world's highest producer and consumer of the crop (FAOSTAT, 2016). Nigeria has the highest yearly yield of 100 million MT of sweetpotato in Africa followed by Uganda (Bergh et al., 2012). Yields of 3.1-6.0 metric tonnes per ha have been documented in several states of Nigeria. However, Kwara State for 3 consecutive years has recorded sweetpotato root yields of 104,500, 108,910 and 113,750 metric tonnes in 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively (Kwara State Agricultural Development Project, 2015).

In Nigeria, sweetpotato perceived as one of the basic food crops particularly in Northern region where they are largely produced. It is among the six important root and tuber crops grown in Africa. Within the Sub-Saharan Africa, it is one of the first three (3) root crops after cassava (Manihot esculenta) and Yam (Discorea spp.) (Ewell and Matuura, 1991; Enyiukwu et al., 2014a,b,d). It is consumed without much processing in the tropics and presents diverse and highly profitable industrial uses such as the sweetpotato snacks (Nwanja et al., 2017).

The entire sweetpotato crop is very useful. The roots are high in calories (energy), fibre and minerals, and are consumed as food by human while the haulms (vines and leaves) are readily eaten by cattle, goats, pigs, poultry and fish when fresh or as hay or silage when dried. Humans also eat the vines as vegetable (DAFF, 2011). Sweetpotato is rich in sugars, low glycemic index, carbohydrates, vitamins C, B6, beta carotene (vitamin A equivalent), niacin and folate as well as large profile of minerals including calcium, iron, magnesium and potassium. Furthermore, it contains appreciable quantities of dietary fibre. However, they are low in fat and completely cholesterol-free (Burt, 2008). Its low glycemic index is an indication of low digestibility of the starch despite its high carbohydrate content (ILSI, 2008). It has such components as polyphenolics, anthocyanins, fibre and carotenoids which serve physiological functions such as anti-oxidation, anti-diabetes, anti-hypertension and anti-ageing attributes amongst others (Sokoto and Ibrahim, 2007; Yoshimoto, 2010).

In most parts of developing tropical countries including Nigeria, fresh sweetpotato roots have been reported to have storage duration of about three weeks only (Rees et al., 2003; Teye, 2010). However, under controlled atmosphere (Temp. 13 -15oC and RH of 90 %) the tubers can store for one year (Woolfe, 1992; Rees et al., 2003). Production of sweetpotato in Nigeria is currently being encouraged for its numerous food security potential. However, after harvest, the storage of the root is challenged by a myriad of problems which are often beyond the average farmer's control.


1.2       STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Besides, immense economic prospects that could be derived from sweetpotato production and marketing, sweetpotato is highly perishable. Its perishability arises mainly due to its thin delicate skin which easily gets damaged during harvesting and post-harvest handling. This is exacerbated by unfavourable environmental conditions and pest attack in storage. Under this condition, the roots express deterioration by decay, shrinkage, weevil infestation and weight loss. It is estimated that in the tropics each year between 25%-50% of stored agricultural products are lost because of inadequate farm and village-level storage (Fawole, 2007; Salau and Shehu, 2015). High water content of its root in addition to damage during harvesting and post-harvest handling make the storage of the crop difficult and vulnerable to insects and microbial attacks, resulting in high losses as root rots and spoilages (Agu et al., 2015). Other challenges constraining sweetpotato production in Nigeria, include inadequate government aid, high labour cost, poor access to low interest credit, lack of new technologies, poor market outlets, poor storage facilities and high pest and diseases prepronderance are considered principal (Fawole, 2007).

Several postharvest fungal diseases have been reported to immensely deteriorate nutritional and feed values of sweetpotatao in storage. They include black rot (Ceratocystics fimbriata), Scurf (Monilochaetes infuscans), Soft rot (Rhizopus stolonifer), Java black rot (Diplodia tubericola) and Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseoli) (Agu et al., 2015). In Nigeria mycoflora including Fusarium oxysporum, Rhizopus stolonifer, Macrophomina phaseolina, Fusarium solani, Botryodiplodia theobromae are involved in the postharvest crop spoilage (Clark and Hoy, 1994). Onuegbu (2002) and Oyewale (2006b) implicated Penicillium sp., Aspergillus flavus Rhizopus stolonifer, Mucor pusillus, Botrytis cinerea and Erysiphe polygoni in the postharvest storage rot and decay of sweetpotato roots. These rot causing organisms create local discolouration and disruption of surrounding tissues of infected roots resulting in changes in appearance, deterioration of texture and organo-leptic properties of affected roots when cooked (Snowdon, 1991).

Moreover, loss of vital nutrients has been attributed to these organisms. Depletion of starch granules and loss of protein and minerals have been reported in potato, sweetpotato and Hausa potato (Amadioha, 1994; Markson et al., 2014; Nwaneri, 2017). According to Jonathan et. al., (2017) attack by A. niger, A. tamarii. A. flavus, Fusarium compacticum, P. chrysogenum and Saccharomyces spp on sweetpotato root after few months in storage resulted in loss of carbohydrate (10.00%), fat (0.8%), protein (1.3%), crude fibre (3.8%) and ash (1.4%). Also, some tuber-borne pathogenic organisms are toxigenic; contaminating edible roots with toxins that are hazardous to poultry, livestock and humans. In Egypt, Abdelhamid (1990) detected ochratoxin A (OTA), aflatoxins, vomiticin, zearalenone and citrinin in feeds of various animals. In Ekpoma and western Nigeria, contamination of sweetpotato chips, flour, stored and fermented tubers with aflatoxins B1, B2, G1 and G2 have been documented (Isibor et al., 2010; Jonathan et al., 2017). These authors argued that besides microbial deteriorations and reduction in produce quality, these organisms ultimately lead to reduction in market value of the produce and gross misfortune to farmers. These pathogens maintain some forms of necrotrophic lifestyles to invade, colonize and damage sweetpotato root tissues under storage by the slightest predisposition. Necrotrophic pathogens infect and kill host tissues with their toxins before extracting nutrients and other growth factors from the dead host cells (Koeck, 2011; Laluk and Mengiste, 2010).

In order to minimize damage and losses due to rot incitants, increase sweetpotato root protection in the field, prolong their shelf-life during storage and transit, several means of plant disease control, including cultural, immunization, chemical, botanicals and biological measures that involve antagonistic agents have been invented. Control of rot and storage deteriorations has been attempted using several cultural approaches like use of clean vines during planting, crop rotation, field and phyto-sanitation (Wokocha and Okereke, 2005; Wokocha and Nwaogu, 2008). However, cultural control methods may not check the disease when epidemics have broken out due to the variability of the causal agents, which limit the efficacy of use of resistant cultivars.

Chemical control on the other hand has been critical in preventing losses due to plant diseases, especially with the development of numerous action-specific fungicides since the 1960s (Wokocha et al., 1986; Wokocha and Uchendu, 2009; Hirooka and Ishii, 2013). For instance, the fungicides dichloronitroanline protected tubers against Rhizopus soft rot (Clark and Moyer, 1988). Effective use of other synthetic fungicides as captan, thiram, mancozeb etc. against the rot diseases (Okigbo, 2004). However, there is obvious fear of mammalian toxicity which results from chemical residues in pesticides-treated roots and tubers consumed directly by humans and livestock (Enyiukwu and Awurum, 2013a,b). For instance, thiram and captan used to protect large volumes of postharvest produce have been banned on account of mammalian toxicity (Enyiukwu, 2011). In addition, excessive and inappropriate applications of these chemicals in agriculture have led to the disruption of ecosystems, several forms of health hazards, pathogens resurgence and development of resistance to chemo-therapeutants (Amadioha, 2002; 2004). Besides, resistance of 150 plant pathogens including many rot-inciting fungi to site-specific fungicides like benomyl, carbendazim, thiophenate-methyl have been documented (Enyiukwu, 2011a,b). For instance, many of the common postharvest pathogens of potatoes have been reported to develop resistance to Mertect (thiabendazole; TBZ), which is the only post-harvest fungicide presently registered for use on table or processing potatoes in North America (Platt, 1997; Satyaprasad et al.,1997). Resistance of pathogenic organisms to agro-chemicals thus far has become a very serious threat in crop production, being reported to occur every 7-10 years post-introduction of each synthetic agro-chemical (Enyiukwu et al., 2014a,b). Nevertheless, post-harvest applications of fungicides for the control of these storage diseases are grossly expensive.

 

1.3       JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

These enormous challenges in the use of synthetic chemical in plant disease control have stimulated research for alternative or complements to synthetic fungicides (Asawalam, 2006; Awurum and Enyiukwu, 2013a). In Nigeria, plant derived-pesticides have been used to control fungal diseases of several crops and their products including fruits such as banana in the field and storage (Okigbo and Emoghene, 2004), and tubers such as yam (Okigbo and Nmeka, 2005), and sweet potato (Amienyo and Ataga, 2007). However, efficacy of pesticides (extracts) of higher plants such as rotenone, nicoten, pyrethrin and neem extracts are challenged and dwindled by the influence of high environmental heat and UV- radiation; thus constituting serious disadvantage to their adoption and use in agriculture (Enyiukwu et al., 2014b)

Some workers have reported the antifungal potentials of bioagents against pathogens of roots and tubers and agricultural produce (Okigbo, 2004). These bio-antagonist are eco-compliant and less phyto-toxic (Amadioha, 2012) and could be used in integrated disease management (IDM) programmes by low-input farmers without leaving toxic residues on treated produce when compared to synthetic chemicals (Enyiukwu et al., 2014b). In addition, they are fast growing and produce multiple bioactive metabolites which are difficult to overcome by rot-inciting mycoflora making pathogen's resistance to them less likely, suggesting that they could provide sustainable disease management solutions in organic farming with zero-synthetic-input tolerance.

Several investigations have shown the inhibitory effects of some bio-agents on spore germination and growth of pathogenic rot fungi both in the field and storage (Amadioha, 2004; Okigbo, 2004). A single spray of soil-derived non-pathogenic strains of Bacillus subtilis and Trichoderma viride was reported to potently protect yam tubers in storage for six months against postharvest rot diseases (Okigbo, 2004). However, reports on the evaluation of biological antagonists against postharvest fungal rot pathogens are not fully documented especially against root rot diseases of sweetpotato. Therefore, the use of these bio-agents including their bioactive ingredients may provide an ideal and sustainable approach to arresting storage rot diseases of sweetpotato. These authors also showed that Bacillus subtilis isolated from cow dung inhibited the growth of pathogenic fungi (B. theobromae and F. oxysporum) isolated from infected yam tuber both in vitro and in vivo. Biological control is eco-friendly and there is no need for repeated spray applications as in the case of synthetic chemical or phyto-chemical interventions against pathogenic organism causing postharvest diseases of root and tuber crops (Okigbo, 2004). Hence, the evaluation of the effects of some fungal bio-antagonists and their metabolites against pathogenic organisms causing rots of sweetpotato root in storage.


1.4       OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This research was aimed at evaluating the antagonistic activities of some bioagents (Trichoderma harzianum, Penicillium oxalicum, Penicillium chrysogenum and Penicillium citrinum) and their metabolites against fungal pathogens causing rot disease of sweetpotato roots in storage. The specific objectives of the study were to:

1.       Survey the rot of sweetpotato root in different farm-communities and major markets in four Local Government Areas (L.G.A.s) in Kwara State.

2.       Isolate and identify the rot causing fungi associated with sweetpotato roots.

3.       Determine the effects of the rot causing organisms on the biochemical composition of infected roots of sweetpotato.

4.       Carry out histological studies on the effect of the pathogens on the tissues of infected sweetpotato root.

5.       Evaluate the biocontrol potentials of Trichoderma harzianum, Penicillium oxalicum, Penicillium chrysogenum and Penicillium citrinum both in vitro and in vivo.

6.       Compare the fungicidal effects of the bio-agents and benomyl against the post-harvest rot pathogens of sweetpotato in vitro and in vivo.

 


Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects

FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!

+(234) 0814 780 1594

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.

Ratings & Reviews

0.0

No Review Found.

Review


To Comment


Sold By

ProjectShelve

7958

Total Item

Reviews (31)

  • Anonymous

    1 day ago

    This is so amazing and unbelievable, it’s really good and it’s exactly of what I am looking for

  • Anonymous

    1 week ago

    Great service

  • Anonymous

    4 weeks ago

    This is truly legit, thanks so much for not disappointing

  • Anonymous

    4 weeks ago

    I was so happy to helping me through my project topic thank you so much

  • Anonymous

    4 weeks ago

    Just got my material... thanks

  • Anonymous

    1 month ago

    Thank you for your reliability and swift service Order and delivery was within the blink of an eye.

  • Anonymous

    1 month ago

    It's actually good and it doesn't delay in sending. Thanks

  • Anonymous

    1 month ago

    I got the material without delay. The content too is okay

  • Anonymous

    1 month ago

    Thank you guys for the document, this will really go a long way for me. Kudos to project shelve👍

  • Anonymous

    1 month ago

    You guys have a great works here I m really glad to be one of your beneficiary hope for the best from you guys am pleased with the works and content writings it really good

  • Anonymous

    1 month ago

    Excellent user experience and project was delivered very quickly

  • Anonymous

    1 month ago

    The material is very good and worth the price being sold I really liked it 👍

  • Anonymous

    1 month ago

    Wow response was fast .. 👍 Thankyou

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    Trusted, faster and easy research platform.

  • TJ

    2 months ago

    great

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    My experience with projectselves. Com was a great one, i appreciate your prompt response and feedback. More grace

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    Sure plug ♥️♥️

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    Thanks I have received the documents Exactly what I ordered Fast and reliable

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    Wow this is amazing website with fast response and best projects topic I haven't seen before

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    Genuine site. I got all materials for my project swiftly immediately after my payment.

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    It agree, a useful piece

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    Good work and satisfactory

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    Good job

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    Fast response and reliable

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    Projects would've alot easier if everyone have an idea of excellence work going on here.

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    Very good 👍👍

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    Honestly, the material is top notch and precise. I love the work and I'll recommend project shelve anyday anytime

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    Well and quickly delivered

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    I am thoroughly impressed with Projectshelve.com! The project material was of outstanding quality, well-researched, and highly detailed. What amazed me most was their instant delivery to both my email and WhatsApp, ensuring I got what I needed immediately. Highly reliable and professional—I'll definitely recommend them to anyone seeking quality project materials!

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    Its amazing transacting with Projectshelve. They are sincere, got material delivered within few minutes in my email and whatsApp.

  • TJ

    5 months ago

    ProjectShelve is highly reliable. Got the project delivered instantly after payment. Quality of the work.also excellent. Thank you