Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Jul 26:3:959753.
doi: 10.3389/ffunb.2022.959753. eCollection 2022.

Plant pathogens as introduced weed biological control agents: Could antagonistic fungi be important factors determining agent success or failure?

Affiliations
Review

Plant pathogens as introduced weed biological control agents: Could antagonistic fungi be important factors determining agent success or failure?

Alana Den Breeyen et al. Front Fungal Biol. .

Abstract

Mycoparasitic interactions are common in nature, form part of the microbiota of plants, and are considered significant contributors to fungus-fungus antagonism. Mycoparasites kill plant pathogens, protect the plant from abiotic and biotic stressors, and reduce disease incidence and severity at the plant population level. Their exploitation as biocontrol agents in agriculture is well documented. However, mycoparasites may potentially affect classical fungal biocontrol agents of invasive weed species. Classical biological control, or biocontrol, of invasive weeds involves the intentional introduction of exotic, usually co-evolved plant pathogens and insects, for permanent establishment and long-term control of the target plant. Agent establishment, effectiveness, and safety are the critical elements for a successful weed biocontrol programme. Establishment and effectiveness of agents on the invasive plant often vary throughout the invaded range with about two-thirds of weed biocontrol agents failing to suppress their target weed. There are many documented reasons why weed biocontrol agents do not establish or are ineffective when they do, and the presence and accumulation of natural enemies in the invaded range is one of them. Endophyte-enriched, invasive weeds and those forming mutualistic associations with indigenous, native endophytes could explain the lack of consistency of some classical biological control introductions. However, another variable could be factored into the mix: mycoparasitism, where one fungus parasitises another, the natural enemies of the plant's natural enemies. In this review article, we introduce the concept of invasive weed biocontrol and the history of using plant pathogens as biocontrol agents. We discuss the success and failure of fungal agent programmes and delve into the patterns of success or failure, with a focus on the potential antagonistic role of endophytes and mycoparasites.

Keywords: classical biological control; endophytes; invasive weeds; mycoparasites; rust fungi.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest..

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic illustration of the interactions between plant pathogens and antagonists in the classical biocontrol of invasive plants. The plant, plant pathogen, and antagonist (endophyte and hyperparasite) are all potentially present in the environment. In the native range (in the green center of the triangle), the interactions are in balance, and the plant is non-invasive. In the introduced range (orange) the plant is present as an introduced exotic species. There are three scenarios: 1) The plant pathogen, introduced as a biocontrol agent, successfully suppresses the plant (top of the triangle). Its effect is stronger than that of any present endophytes or hyperparasites. 2) A protective endophyte inhibits the plant pathogen (bottom left of the triangle). Biocontrol fails, and the plant remains an invasive weed. 3) A hyperparasite inhibits the plant pathogen (bottom right of the triangle). Biocontrol fails, and the plant remains an invasive weed. Both lower parts of the triangle are examples where outbreaks of a plant pathogen have been prevented, either intentionally (biocontrol of pathogens) or unintentionally (interference with the biocontrol of weeds).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Adame-Álvarez R.-M., Mendiola-Soto J., Heil M. (2014). Order of arrival shifts endophyte–pathogen interactions in bean from resistance induction to disease facilitation. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 355 (2), 100–107. doi: 10.1111/1574-6968.12454 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Allen D. J. (1982). Verticillium lecanii on the bean rust fungus, Uromyces appendiculatus . Trans. Br. Mycol Soc. 79, 362–364. doi: 10.1016/S0007-1536(82)80132-0 - DOI
    1. Anderson F. E., Barton J., McLaren D. (2010). Studies to assess the suitability of Uromyces pencanus as a biological control agent for Nassella neesiana (Poaceae) in Australia and new Zealand. Australas. Plant Pathol. 39 (1), 69–78. doi: 10.1071/ap09057 - DOI
    1. Anderson F. E., Lopez S. P. S., Sanchez R. M., Fuentealba C. G. R., Barton J. (2016). Puccinia araujiae, a promising classical biocontrol agent for moth plant in new Zealand: Biology, host range and hyperparasitism by Cladosporium uredinicola . Biol. Control 95, 23–30. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2015.12.015 - DOI
    1. Arnold A. E., Mejía L. C., Kyllo D., Rojas E. I., Maynard Z., Robbins N., et al. . (2003). Fungal endophytes limit pathogen damage in a tropical tree. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100 (26), 15649–15654. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2533483100 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources