- Author: Surendra K. Dara
Balanced nutrient inputs are essential for optimal plant growth and yields. Depending on the soil, crop, and environmental conditions, certain nutritional supplements further enhance crop performance. While macro- and micro-nutrients are necessary for plant growth and optimal yields, biostimulants play multiple roles by increasing the bioavailability of nutrients, improving nutrient and water absorption, protecting plants from pestiferous organisms either through direct antagonism or by triggering plants defense mechanisms (Berg, 2009; Dara, 2019a). In addition to improving health and yields, biostimulants are also known to increase nutritional quality (Parađiković et al., 2011; Fierentino et al., 2018). Multiple field studies in California demonstrated the potential of biostimulants and soil amendments in improving yields in tomato (Dara, 2019b; Dara and Lewis, 2019) and strawberry (Dara and Peck, 2018; Dara, 2019a). As the knowledge of biostimulants and their potential for sustainable agriculture is expanding, there has been a steady introduction of biostimulant products in the market warranting additional studies. A study was conducted to evaluate the potential of different biostimulant materials on strawberry growth, health, and fruit yields.
This study was conducted in an experimental strawberry field at the Shafter Research Station during 2019-2020. Cultivar San Andreas was planted on 29 October 2019. No pre-plant fertilizer application was made in this non-fumigated field which had both Fusarium oxysporum and Macrophomina phaseolina infections in previous year's strawberry planting. Each treatment was applied to a 300' long bed with single drip tape in the center and two rows of strawberry plants. Sprinkler irrigation was provided immediately after planting along with drip irrigation, which was provided one or more times weekly as needed for the rest of the experimental period. Each bed was divided into six 30' long plots, representing replications, with an 18' buffer in between. This study included both biostimulant and nutrient supplements, but this article presents data from the biostimulant treatments only. Treatments were applied either as fertigation through the drip system using a Dosatron or sprayed over the plants with a handheld garden sprayer. The following treatments were evaluated in this study:
i) Grower Standard (GS): Between 6 November 2019 and 9 May 2020, 1.88 qt of 20-10-0 (a combination of 32-0-0 urea ammonium nitrate and 10-34-0 ammonium phosphate) and 1.32 qt of potassium thiosulfate was applied 20 times at weekly intervals through fertigation. This fertilizer program was used as the standard for all treatments except for the addition of biostimulant materials.
ii) GS + Abound: Transplants were dipped in 7 fl oz of Abound (azoxystrobin) fungicide in 100 gal of water for 4 min immediately prior to planting. Transplant dip in a fungicide is practiced by several growers to protect from fungal diseases and is considered as another standard in this study.
iii) GS + Locus program: Applied Str10 (Wickerhamomyces sp.) at 5 fl oz/ac with molasses at 10 fl oz/ac immediately after planting and Rhizolizer (Trichoderma harzianum and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens) at 3 fl oz with a food source blend at 10 fl oz 2 weeks after Str10 application through the drip system. Repeated the same pattern starting from mid-February 2020. From February to May, applied 6 fl oz/ac of Rhizolizer with 20 fl oz/ac of food source once a month. Str10 is an unregistered product with yeast that is expected to help with nutrient uptake and phosphorous mobilization for improved plant vigor and yield. Rhizolizer is expected to solubilize soil nutrients and improve crop growth and yield.
iv) GS + Redox program: Starting from about one month after planting, diKaP (0-31-50 NPK) was applied as a foliar spray at 2 lb in 50 gpa every two weeks. In addition to potassium and phosphorus, diKaP also contains proprietary soluable carbon compounds that improve antioxidant production leading to increased plant respiration and tolerance to abiotic stress.
v) Bio Huma Netics (BHN) program: Transplants were dipped in 10 gal of water with 6.4 fl oz of BreakOut (4-14-2 NPK), 1.28 fl oz of Promax (thyme oil), 1.28 fl oz of Vitol (8-16-4 NPK with iron, manganese, sulfur, and zinc), and 1.28 fl oz of Zap (8-0-0 N with iron, manganese, sulfur and zinc) for 4 min immediately prior to planting. Custom blends of macro- and micro-nutrients (Ultra Precision A and B) were prepared based on soil (pre-planting) and plant tissue analyses and applied as a substitute to the grower standard fertility program. Ultra Precision A during the first 30 days after planting and Ultra Precision B for the rest of the study period were applied at weekly intervals at 1.6 gal/bed for a total of 12 times (compared to 20 fertigation events for the grower standard program). Ultra Precision blends were made with Super Phos/Phos-Max, Super Potassium, X-Tend, Nitric acid, Calcium, 44 Mag, BreakOut, Vitol, Max Pak, Iro-Max, Activol, Comol, and Surf-Max that provided N, P, and K along with boron, calcium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, and sulfur.
vi) GS + BioWorks program 1: Applied 32 fl oz of ON-Gard (based on soy protein hydrolysate) every two weeks through the drip system from planting until canopy develops and then applied as a foliar spray in 50 gpa. ON-Gard is expected to increase the nutrient use efficiency and decrease abiotic stress to the plants.
vii) GS + BioWorks program 2: Applied 32 fl oz of ON-Gard (soy protein-based) every two weeks through the drip system from planting until canopy develops and then sprayed in 50 gpa. Also applied RootShield Plus WP (T. harzianum and T. virens) at 2 lb/ac through drip immediately after planting and 1 lb/ac at the end of November and again at the end of December 2019. RootShield is a biofungicide expected to protect strawberry from phytopathogens and improve water and nutrient uptake.
viii) GS + Fauna Soil Production (FSP) program: Applied CropSignal at 10 gpa six days prior to planting and at 5 gpa 30 after transplanting through the drip system. CropSignal is a carbon-based nutrient formula containing botanical extracts and along with cobalt, copper, manganese, and zinc and is expected to support the growth and diversity of beneficial aerobic soil microbes for improved soil structure, water retention, nutrient cycling, and plant protection.
ix) GS + Stoller program 1: Applied Stoller Root Feed Dry (9-0-5 NPK with boron, calcium, magnesium, and molybdenum) at 10 lb/ac every 10 days starting from 19 February 2020 and Stoller Grow (4-0-3 NPK with copper, magnesium, manganese, and zinc) at 8 fl oz/ac once on 27 February 2020 through the drip system. Stoller Root Feed Dry is expected to promote continuous root growth by maintaining nutritional balance while Stoller Grow is expected to increase growth efficiency and abiotic stress tolerance.
x) GS + Stoller program 2: Applied Harvest More Urea Mate (5-10-27 NPK with boron, calcium, cobalt, copper, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, and zinc) at 10 lb/ac along with Stoller Crop Mix (algal extract with boron and calcium) at 8 fl oz/ac every 10 days starting from 19 February 2020 and Stoller Grow at 8 fl oz/ac once on 27 February 2020 through the drip system. Harvest More Urea Mate is expected to provide optimal plant growth while Stoller Crop Mix is expected to maintain the nutritional balance and improve crop vigor and yields.
Parameters observed during the study included canopy growth (area of the canopy) in January, February, and March; first flower and fruit count in January; leaf chlorophyll and leaf nitrogen (with chlorophyll meter) in January, February, and May; fruit sugar (with refractometer) in March and May; fruit firmness (with penetrometer) in March, April, and May; severity of gray mold (caused by Botrytis cinereae) and other fruit diseases (mucor fruit rot caused by Mucor spp. and Rhizopus fruit rot caused by Rhizopus spp.) 3 and 5 days after harvest (on a scale of 0 to 4 where 0=no infection; 1=1-25%, 2=26-50%, 3=51-75% and 4=76-100% fungal growth) in March and May; sensitivity to heat stress (expressed as the number of dead and dying plants) in May; and fruit yield per plant from 11 weekly harvests between 11 March and 14 May 2020. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance in Statistix software and significant means were separated using the Least Significant Difference test.
Results and Discussion
The impact of treatments varied on various measured parameters. The interactions among plants, available nutrients, beneficial and pathogenic microorganisms in the crop environment, the influence of environmental factors, and how all these biotic and abiotic factors ultimately impact the crop health and yields are very complex. The scope of this study was only to measure the impact of biostimulants and nutrient supplements on growth, health, and yield parameters and not to investigate those complex interactions.
The canopy size does not always correspond with yields but could be indicative of stresses and how the plant is responding to them in the presence of treatment materials. Plants in some treatments had significantly larger canopy size in January and February, but plants in the grower standard and both Stoller programs were significantly larger than the rest by March. Leaf chlorophyll and nitrogen contents were significantly different among treatments only in January where the grower standard plants had the lowest and the plants that received CropSignal had the highest. When the counts of the first onset of flowers and developing fruits were taken in January, plants that received the BioWorks program that only received ON-Gard had the highest number followed by the CropSignal and Abound treatments. Stoller treatments were not included in the study at this time, so data for leaf chlorophyll, nitrogen, and first flower and fruit counts were not available in January. Average fruit sugar was the highest in BioWorks program with ON-Gard alone followed by FSP's Crop Signal, both Stoller programs, and the Abound treatments. There was no statistically significant difference in the average fruit firmness among the treatments. Severity of the gray mold, which occurred at low levels during the observation period, also did not statistically differ among the treatments. However, the severity of other diseases was significantly different among various treatments with the highest level in fruits from the grower standard. Temperatures were unusually high during the last week of May and several plants exhibited heat stress and started to die. The number of dead or dying plants on 28 May was the lowest in Locus and Abound treatments.
There were significant differences in marketable and unmarketable fruit yields among treatments. Highest marketable yields were seen in both Stoller treatments followed by BioWorks program with ON-Gard alone, BHN, and other treatments. Transplant dip in a fungicide seems to have a negative impact on fruit yields as observed in the current study or earlier studies (Dara and Peck, 2017 and 2018; Peck unpublished data). While the grower standard had the highest amount of unmarketable fruits, the Locus treatment had the lowest in this study. Fruit yield and some of the observed parameters appeared to be better in the grower standard compared to some treatments, which has also been seen in some earlier strawberry studies. While biostimulants can help plants under some stresses, providing sufficient macro- and micro-nutrients seems to be critical for higher fruit yields as seen with Stoller and BHN treatments. It is important to note that BHN materials were applied only 12 times compared to 20 applications of the grower standard treatment or other treatments that were applied on top of the grower standard treatment. It is also important to note that when ON-Gard was used alone, it also improved the marketable fruit yields by nearly 12% compared to the grower standard. When marketable fruit yield in the Abound treatment was considered, all treatments performed better 7-50% higher yields. Sometimes natural balance of the nutrients, organic matter, and microbial community in the soil might result in optimal yields in the absence of pathogens or other stressors. However, it is very common to use fungicidal treatments or add biological or supplemental nutrition to protect from potential threats and improving yields. These results help understand the impact of various biostimulants and supplements and warrant the need to continue such studies under various environmental, crop, and soil conditions.
Acknowledgments: Thanks to Bio Huma Netics, BioWorks, Inc., Fauna Soil Production, Locus Agricultural Solutions, Redox Ag, and Stoller for the financial support of the study and Marjan Heidarian Dehkordi and Tamas Zold for their technical assistance.
Berg, G. 2009. Plant-microbe interactions promoting plant growth and health: perspectives for controlled use of microorganisms in agriculture. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 84: 11-18.
Dara, S. K. 2019a. Improving strawberry yields with biostimulants: a 2018-2019 study. UCANR eJournal of Entomology and Biologicals. https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=31096
Dara, S. K. 2019b. Effect of microbial and botanical biostimulants with nutrients on tomato yield. CAPCA Adviser, 22(5): 40-45.
Dara, S. K. and D. Peck. 2017. Evaluating beneficial microbe-based products for their impact on strawberry plant growth, health, and fruit yield. UCANR eJournal of Entomology and Biologicals. https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=25122
Dara, S. K. and D. Peck. 2018. Evaluation of additive, soil amendment, and biostimulant products in Santa Maria strawberry. CAPCA Adviser, 21 (5): 44-50.
Dara, S. K. and E. Lewis. 2019. Evaluating biostimulant and nutrient inputs to improve tomato yields and crop health. Progressive Crop Consultant 4(5): 38-42.
Fiorentino, N., V. Ventorino, S. L. Woo, O. Pepe, A. De Rosa, L. Gioia, I. Romano, N. Lombardi, M. Napolitano, G. Colla, and Y. Rouphael. 2018. Trichoderma-based biostimulants modulate rhizosphere microbial populations and improve N uptake efficiency, yield, and nutritional quality of leafy vegetables. Frontiers in Plant Sci. 9: 743.
Parađiković, N., T. Vinković, I. V. Vrček, I. Žuntar, M. Bojić, and M. Medić-Šarić. 2011. Effect of natural biostimulants on yield and nutritional quality: an example of sweet yellow pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) plants. J. Sci. Food. Agric. 91: 2146-2152.
- Author: Surendra K. Dara
Biostimulants are beneficial microorganisms or substances that can be used in crop production to improve plants' immune responses and their ability to perform well under biotic and abiotic stresses. Biostimulants induce plant resistance to stress factors through systemic acquired resistance or induced systemic resistance. When plants are exposed to virulent and avirulent pathogens, non-pathogenic microorganisms, and some chemicals, the systemic acquired resistance mechanism is activated through the salicylic acid pathway triggering the production of pathogenesis-related proteins. On the other hand, when plants are exposed to beneficial microbes, the induced systemic resistance mechanism is activated through the jasmonic acid and ethylene pathways. The jasmonic acid pathway also leads to pathogenesis-related protein production in plants. In other words, when plants are exposed to pathogens, non-pathogens, or other compounds, various defense genes are activated through two major immune responses, helping plants fight the real infection or prepare them for potential infection. Beneficial microbes and non-microbial biostimulants are like vaccines that prepare plants for potential health problems.
Earlier studies in tomato (Dara and Lewis, 2018; Dara, 2019a) and strawberry (Dara and Peck, 2018; Dara, 2019b) demonstrated varying levels of benefits to crop health and yield improvements from a variety of botanical, microbial, or mineral biostimulants and other supplements. Some of the evaluated products resulted in significant yield improvement in both tomatoes and strawberries compared to the grower standard practices. There are several biostimulant products in the market with a variety of active ingredients, and some also have major plant nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Depending on the crop, growing conditions, potential risk of pests and diseases, and other factors, growers can use one or more of these products. A study was conducted to evaluate the impact of various biostimulants on the yield, quality, and shelf life of strawberries.
Strawberry cultivar San Andreas was planted late November 2018 and treatments were administered at the time of planting or soon after, depending on the protocol. Each treatment had a 290' long strawberry bed where 10' of the bed at each end was left out as a buffer. Then, six 30' long plots, each representing a replication, were marked within each bed with an 18' buffer between the plots. Since the test products needed to be applied through the drip system, an entire bed was allocated for each treatment, except for the standard program that had one bed on either side of the experimental block, and plots were marked within each bed for data collection. The following treatment regimens were used in the study:
1. Standard Program (SP): Major nutrients were provided in the form of Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solution 32-0-0, Ammonium Polyphosphate Solution, and Potassium Thiosulfate (KTS 0-0-25). Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium were applied before planting in November 2018 at 170, 60, and 130 lb/acre, respectively. From 15 January to 9 May 2019, a total of 26 lb of nitrogen, 13 lb of phosphorus, and 26 lb of potassium were applied through 13 periodic applications.
2. SP + Terramera Program: Formulation labeled as Experimental A (cold-pressed neem 70%) was applied at 1.2% vol/vol immediately after planting. Additional applications were made starting from 2 weeks after planting once every two weeks until the end of February (six times), followed by 13 weekly applications from the beginning of March.
3. SP + Locus Low Rate Program: This program contained Rhizolizer soil amendment (Trichoderma harzianum 1X108 CFU/ml and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens 1X109 CFU/ml) at 3 fl oz/acre, humic acid at 13.5 fl oz/acre, and kelp at 6.8 fl oz/acre. The first application was made within 15 days and at 30 days after planting followed by once in February, March, and April 2019.
4. SP + Locus High Rate Program: This program contained Rhizolizer soil amendment (Trichoderma harzianum 1X108 CFU/ml and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens 1X109 CFU/ml) at 6 fl oz/acre, humic acid at 13.5 fl oz/acre, and kelp at 6.8 fl oz/acre. The first application was made within 15 days and at 30 days after planting followed by once in February, March, and April 2019.
5. SP + BioGro Program: Transplants were treated with Premium Plant BB (Beauveria bassiana 1.1%) by spraying 2 fl oz/acre (1.29 ml in 850 ml of water). About 7 weeks after planting, 30 gpa of Plant-X Rhizo-Pro (botanical extracts), 2 gpa of CHB Premium 21 (humic acid blend), 3 gpa of CHB Premium 6 (3% humic acids), and 5 gpa of NUE Flourish 4-12-0 were applied. Starting from mid-February 2019, 15 gpa of Plant-X Rhizo-Pro, 1 gpa of CHB Premium 21, and 2 gpa of CHB Premium 6 were applied four times every 2 weeks until the end of March. Starting from 5 April 2019, 8 weekly applications of 10 gpa of Plant-X Rhizo-Pro, 1 gpa of CHB Premium 21, 2 gpa of Premium 6, and 4 gpa of NUE Flourish 4-12-0 were made until 26 May 2019.
6. SP + Actagro Program: Structure 7-21-0 at 3 gpa and Liquid Humus 0-0-4 with 22% organic acids at 1 gpa were first applied within 1 week of planting and then three more times every 2 weeks until the end of December 2018. Additional monthly applications were made from the end of January to the end of April 2019.
All the fertilizers and treatment materials were applied through the drip system using the Dosatron (Model D14MZ2) equipment. The following parameters were measured during the experimental period from January to May 2019.
Canopy: The size of the plant canopy was determined on 21 January and again on 17 February 2019 by measuring the spread of the canopy across and along the length of the bed from 16 random plants within each plot, and calculating the area.
Initial flowering and fruiting: When flowering initiated, the number of flowers and developing fruits was counted from 16 random plants within each plot on 1 and 16 February 2019.
Fruit yield: Fruit was harvested weekly from every plant within each plot from 3 March to 26 May 2019 on 11 dates and the number and weight of the marketable and unmarketable fruit was determined. Due to a technical error, some of the yield data from an additional date (29 March) were lost and excluded from the analysis.
Fruit firmness: The firmness of two marketable fruit from each of five random plants per plot was measured using a penetrometer on 5 April, and 16 and 26 May 2019.
Fruit sugar content: The sugar content from one marketable fruit from each of 10 plants per plot was measured using a refractometer on 5 April and 26 May 2019.
Leaf chlorophyll content: On 11 March and 31 May 2019, the chlorophyll content of one mature leaf from each of five random plants per plot was measured using a chlorophyll meter.
Postharvest disease: Marketable fruit harvested on 21 and 28 April, and 5 and 26 May 2019 was kept at the room temperature in perforated plastic containers (clamshells) and the growth of gray mold (Botrytis cinerea) or Rhizopus fruit rot fungus (Rhizopus spp.) was measured on a scale of 0 to 4 (where 0=no fungus, 1=1-25%, 2=26-50%, 3=51-75%, and 4=76-100% fungal growth) 3 and 5 days after each harvest.
Data were analyzed using analysis of variance in Statistix software and significant means were separated using the Least Significant Difference means separation test.
Results and Discussion
Statistically significant differences among treatments were seen for the seasonal total number of unmarketable berries (P = 0.0172), the initial flower and fruit numbers on 1 February (P < 0.0014), the leaf chlorophyll content on 31 May (P = 0.0144), and the disease rating 3 days after the 28 April harvest (P = 0.0065).
Treatments did not differ (P > 0.05) in any other measured parameters of the plant, fruit quality, or yield. However, the total seasonal fruit yield was 13 to 31% higher and the total marketable fruit yield was 10 to 36% higher in various treatment programs compared to the standard program. The seasonal total of unmarketable fruit yield was also 4 to 25% higher in treatment programs than the standard program except that there were nearly 12% fewer unmarketable berries in the Actagro program compared to the standard program.
While treatments did not statistically differ for many of the measured parameters, numerical differences in marketable fruit yield could be helpful for some understanding of the potential of these biostimulants. Additional studies with larger treatment plots would be useful for generating additional data.
Thanks to Dr. Jenita Thinakaran for the assistance at the start of the study, Hamza Khairi for his technical assistance throughout the study, the field staff at the Shafter Research Station for the crop maintenance, NorCal Nursery for the strawberry transplants, and Actagro, BioGro, Locus, and Terramera for their collaboration and financial support
Dara, S. K. 2019a. Improving tomato yield with nutrient materials containing microbial and botanical biostimulants. eJournal of Entomology and Biologicals, 6 June 2019 https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=30448
Dara, S. K. 2019b. Evaluating the efficacy of anti-stress supplements on strawberry yield and quality. eJournal of Entomology and Biologicals, 10 August 2019 https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=31044
Dara, S. K. and D. Peck. 2018. Microbial and bioactive soil amendments for improving strawberry crop growth, health, and fruit yields: a 2017-2018 study eJournal of Entomology and Biologicals, 3 August 2018 https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=27891
Dara, S. K. and E. Lewis. 2018. Impact of nutrient and biostimulant materials on tomato crop health and yield. eJournal of Entomology and Biologicals, 9 January 2019 https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=26054
- Author: Surendra K. Dara
Beauveria bassiana is a soilborne entomopathogenic fungus which offers plant protection as a pathogen of arthropod pests (Feng et al., 1994; Dara, 2015). It also appears to have a direct association with plants as an endophyte, colonizing various plant tissues, or through a mycorrizha-like relationship promoting plant health and growth (Bing and Lewis, 1991; Posada and Vega, 2005; Dara, 2013; Dara and Dara, 2015; Lopez and Sword, 2015; Dara et al., 2016;). In a raised bed study conducted in 2013, treating strawberry transplants with B. bassiana resulted in a significant improvement in the plant growth compared to untreated control or treatment with a beneficial microbe-based product (Dara, 2013). To evaluate such an impact in a commercial strawberry field, a study was conducted at Manzanita Berry Farms in Santa Maria in conventional fall-planted strawberries.
Chris Martinez, Manzanita Berry Farms applying B. bassiana to newly planted strawberry crop.
Experimental design included five plots each of the grower standard and periodical soil application of B. bassiana (BotaniGard ES) alternated on consecutive beds. Each plot had 50 strawberry plants. Strawberry variety PS3108 was planted on 27 November, 2013 and B. bassiana treatment was initiated on 2 December, 2013. To prepare the treatment liquid, 0.64 fl oz (18.9 ml) of BotaniGard ES was mixed in 1 gal (3.78 L). About 0.4 fl oz (11.8 ml) of the liquid was applied near the base of each plant (5 cm deep and 2.5 cm away from the plant) in B. bassiana treatment using a handpump sprayer. Application was continued every week until 13 January, 2014 (a total of seven times) followed by six biweekly applications until 7 April, 2014.
To determine the impact of B. bassiana on plant growth, size of the strawberry canopy was measured across and along the length of the bed from every third plant (20 total) within each plot on 21 January, 11 February, and 7 March, 2014. Yield data were collected every 2-3 days from 8 March to 30 June, 2014 following the normal harvest schedule. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and Tukey's HSD test was used to separate significant means.
About 5 weeks (above) and 14 weeks (below) after transplanting.
Chris Martinez taking canopy measurements.
Canopy size was slightly higher for B. bassiana-treated plants on the first two sampling dates and for the grower standard plants on the last observation date although differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Seasonal total for the marketable berries was slightly higher in the grower standard (101.1 lb or 45.9 kg) than in B. bassiana treatment (97.4 lb or44.2 kg), but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The average weight of marketable berries was 28.8 g from the B. bassiana-treated plots and 28.7 g from the grower standard.
Strawberry canopy (above) and seasonal yield (below) data in B. bassiana-treated and grower standard plots.
In the 2013 raised bed study, roots of the misted tip strawberry transplants were treated 48 hours before planting by applying 1 ml of the Mycotrol-O formulation (2.11X1011 conidia) in 1 ml of water per plant. In the current study, transplants could not be treated before planting and the commercial field application rate used (1.25X109 conidia) was much less than the rate used in the raised bed study. Although multiple applications were made for several weeks during the current study, B. bassiana did not have any impact on plant growth or fruit yields. This was the first commercial field study evaluating the impact of B. bassiana on strawberry plant growth and yield. Plant, soil, and microbe interaction is very complex and is influenced by multiple factors. Additional studies are necessary to understand the potential of B. bassiana and other entomopathogenic fungi in plant production in addition to its role in plant protection.
Acknowledgements: Thanks to Dave Peck, Manzanita Berry Farms for collaboration on the study and Chris Martinez for his technical assistance.
Bing, L. A., and L. C. Lewis. 1991. Suppression of Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) by endophytic Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin. Environ. Entomol. 20: 1207-1211.
Dara, S. K. 2013. Entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana promotes strawberry plant growth and health. UCANR eJournal Strawberries and Vegetables, 30 September, 2013.
Dara, S. K. 2016. IPM solutions of insect pests in California strawberries: efficacy of botanical, chemical, mechanical, and microbial options. CAPCA Adviser 19 (2): 40-46.
Dara, S. K. and S. R. Dara. 2015. Entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana endophytically colonizes strawberry plants. UCANR eJournal Strawberries and Vegetables, 17 February, 2015.
Dara, S. K., S.S.R. Dara, and S. S. Dara. 2016. First report of entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria bassiana, Isaria fumosorosea, and Metarhizium brunneum promoting the growth and health of cabbage plants growing under water stress. UCANR eJournal Strawberries and Vegetables, 19 September, 2016.
Feng, M. G., T. J. Poprawski, and G. G. Khachatourians. 1994. Production, formulation and application of the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana for insect control: current status. Biocon. Sci. Tech. 4: 3-34.
Lopez, D. C. and G. A. Sword, G. A. 2015. The endophytic fungal entomopathogens Beauveria bassiana and Purpureocillium lilacinum enhance the growth of cultivated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and negatively affect survival of the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea). Biol. Control 89: 53-60.
Posada, F. and F. E. Vega. 2005. Establishment of the fungal entomopathogen Beauveria bassiana (Ascomycota: Hypocreales) as an endophyte in cocoa seedlings (Theobroma cacao). Mycologia 97: 1195-1200.