Agrichemical impact on growth and survival of non-target apple phyllosphere microorganisms

25Citations
Citations of this article
39Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The impact of conventional agrichemicals commonly used in New Zealand apple production on non-target, culturable phyllosphere microbial populations was studied in the laboratory (agar, leaf, and seedling assays) and field (apple orchard). Morphologically distinct bacteria (three), yeasts (five), and filamentous microfungi (two) were used as indicator species. The agar assay showed that agrichemical toxicity to microorganisms was dependent on product type, product rate, and organism studied. While the fungicides metiram and captan stopped or severely reduced growth of nearly all microorganisms studied, the insecticides tebufenozide and lufenuron and the fungicide nitrothal-isopropyl showed the least amount of microbial toxicity, each affecting 2 of the 10 indicator organisms studied. In the leaf assay a single agrichemical application at field rate either reduced or increased microbial population counts, again depending on product and microorganism. Repeated agrichemical applications, however, reduced microbial population numbers from 10- to 10 000-fold in planta. Further field research validated these findings, although differences in microbial numbers before and after agrichemical applications were less dramatic. In the orchard, total organism numbers recovered within 2-6 days, but species richness (sum of recognizable taxonomic units) declined. Agrichemicals clearly affected non-target, culturable surface microorganisms. The importance of diversity and stability of microbial populations for disease control still needs to be established. © 2007 NRC.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Walter, M., Frampton, C. M., Boyd-Wilson, K. S. H., Harris-Virgin, P., & Waipara, N. W. (2007). Agrichemical impact on growth and survival of non-target apple phyllosphere microorganisms. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 53(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1139/W06-093

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free