Water Content in PDA: Influence on Growth and Development of Trichoderma aureoviride 1010 Conidia on Solid Medium

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19020001

Abstract

Abstract:

The purpose is to clarify the influence of water content in potato glucose medium (PDA) on growth and development of Trichoderma aureoviride 1010 conidia, and to provide theoretical and technical support for industrial production of Trichoderma agent. In this study, potato glucose medium (PDA) was used as the basic medium with 17 kinds of water/nutrition and 16 kinds of water/agar to be inoculated with T. aureoviride 1010. Colony morpha and radius, hyphal growth, the development, morpha and quantity of conidial of T1010 were observed. In the mass ratio of water/glucose test, the largest approximate diameter was at the water/glucose mass ratio of 55.56, which was 7.94% higher than that in standard PDA. The growth limit value of T1010 at the water/glucose mass ratio of 83.33 was the highest. The maximum specific growth rate was 0.316/h at the water/glucose mass ratio of 500. The highest conidia yield per unit area of medium was at the water/glucose mass ratio of 25, and the conidia yield increased by 61.04% than that in standard PDA. The highest conidia yield per unit mass of glucose was at the water/glucose mass ratio of 55.56, and the conidia yield increased by 10.86% than that in standard PDA. In the mass ratio of water/agar test, the conidia yield per unit area of medium at the water/agar mass ratio of 38.46 was 21.72% higher than that of standard PDA medium, and the conidia yield per unit mass of agar at the water/agar mass ratio of 500 was significantly higher than that of standard PDA by 381.94%. When the ratio of water, potato, glucose and agar in PDA medium was 1000:36:18:26, conidia of T1010 developed well and produced high yield. Thus, matrix water regulation is the key point in solid fermentation production.

Key words: PDA, water content, solid culture, relative content, Trichoderma aureoviride, conidia, influence

CLC Number:

Chen Jian’ai, Jia Mengying, Chen Weijing. Water Content in PDA: Influence on Growth and Development of Trichoderma aureoviride 1010 Conidia on Solid Medium[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(15): 106-114.

Figures/Tables 10

References 24

[1]	Harman G E, Kubicek C P . Trichoderma & Gliocladium[M]. London, Tayor and Francis, 1998,2:73-191.
[2]	王金胜 . 酶工程[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2007: 49-51, 258-283.
[3]	周燚, 王中康, 俞子牛 . 微生物农药研发及应用[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2006: 167-176.
[4]	陈建爱, 周善跃, 杨焕明 , 等. 黄绿木霉T1010防治辣椒根腐病茄镰孢[J]. 农学学报, 2012,2(10):14-18.
[5]	Gloria I, Roberta R, Federica P . Biocontrol ability of Trichoderma harzianum strain T22 against Fusarium wilt disease on water-stressed lettuce plants[J]. BioControl, 2015,60(4):573-581.
[6]	Ganuza M, Pastor N, Erazo J , et al. Efficacy of the biocontrol agent Trichoderma harzianum ITEM 3636 against peanut smut, an emergent disease caused by Thecaphora frezii[J]. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 2018,151(1):257-262.
[7]	Satish K S, Abhay K P . Evaluation of some Trichoderma harzianum isolates for the management of soilborne diseases of brinjal and okra[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences, 2018,88(3):905-914.
[8]	陈建爱, 陈为京, 刘风吉 . 黄绿木霉T1010对花生根腐病生防效果研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2018,27(8):1446-1452.
[9]	张量, 张敬泽 . 渐绿木霉抑菌物质的分离纯化及其对植物病原菌的抑菌作用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015,48(5):882-888.
[10]	Antonella V, Esther L M, Adriano S , et al. Beneficial effects of Trichoderma harzianum T-22 in tomato seedlings infected by Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV)[J]. Biocontrol, 2015,60(1):135-147. doi: 10.1007/s10526-014-9626-3 URL
[11]	李松鹏, 崔琳琳, 程家森 , 等. 两株哈茨木霉菌株防治水稻纹枯病及促进水稻生长的潜力研究[J]. 植物病理学报, 2018,48(1):98-107.
[12]	李进一, 卢彩鸽, 刘霆 , 等. 短密木霉新菌株BF06对黄瓜土传病害的防治效果与促生作用[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2018,34(3):449-460.
[13]	Zhang F G, Huo Y Q, Xu X X , et al. Trichoderma improves the growth of Leymus chinensis[J]. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 2018,54(6):685-696. doi: 10.1007/s00374-018-1292-7 URL
[14]	陈建爱, 段友臣, 郭峰 , 等. 木霉制剂改良滨海盐渍土台田生态效应[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2016,24(1):90-97.
[15]	谢益晖, 黄曹兴, 李鑫 , 等. 搅拌转速和通风量对里氏木霉发酵β-甘露聚糖酶的影响[J]. 林业工程学报, 2017,2(6):92-96.
[16]	陈晨, 旷文丰, 陈娟 , 等. 钙离子和蓝光对深绿木霉Tr775在液体发酵过程中分生孢子产量的影响[J]. 化学与生物工程, 2018,35(1):36-40.
[17]	Nazanin D, Zohreh H E, Parisa H . Improvement of cellulase production and its characteristics by inducing mutation on Trichoderma reesei 2414 under solid state fermentation on rice by-products[J]. Applied Food Biotechnology, 2018,5(1):11-18.
[18]	赵蕾 . 液固两相法制备木霉菌高孢粉[J]. 中国生物防治, 1999,15(3):144.
[19]	孙斐, 陈靠山, 张鹏英 . 固态发酵麸皮和玉米芯生产拟康氏木霉孢子的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2010,26(6):236-239.
[20]	Harman G E, Herrera-estella A H, Horwitz B A , et al. Special issue: Trichoderma - from basic biology to biotechnology[J]. Microbiology, 2012,158(1):1-2.
[21]	梁昌聪, 刘磊, 张建华 , 等. 绿色木霉菌H06固体浅盘发酵工艺优化[J]. 菌物学报, 2014,33(6):1313-1326.
[22]	杨生玉, 王刚, 沈永红 . 微生物生理学[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2007: 234-275.
[23]	周德庆 . 微生物学实验教程[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2013: 281-283.
[24]	武维华 . 植物生理学[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2008: 51.

序号	水葡萄糖质量比	水葡萄糖分子比	水马铃薯质量比	水马铃薯分子比	水琼脂质量比	水琼脂分子比
1	500	5000	250	194444	∞	∞
2	250	2500	125	97222	500	17515
3	166.67	1667	83.33	64815	250	8758
4	125	1250	62.5	48611	166.67	5838
5	100	1000	50	38889	125	4379
6	83.33	833	41.67	32407	100	3503
7	71.43	714	35.71	27778	83.33	2919
8	62.5	625	31.25	24306	71.43	2502
9	55.56	556	27.78	21605	62.5	2189
10	50	500	25	19444	55.56	1946
11	45.45	455	22.72	17677	50	1752
12	41.67	417	20.83	16204	45.45	1592
13	38.46	385	19.23	14957	41.67	1460
14	35.71	357	17.86	13889	38.46	1347
15	33.33	333	16.67	12963	35.71	1251
16	28.57	286	14.29	11111	33.33	1168
17	25	250	12.5	9722

序号	水葡萄糖质量比	水葡萄糖分子比	水马铃薯质量比	水马铃薯分子比	水琼脂质量比	水琼脂分子比
1	500	5000	250	194444	∞	∞
2	250	2500	125	97222	500	17515
3	166.67	1667	83.33	64815	250	8758
4	125	1250	62.5	48611	166.67	5838
5	100	1000	50	38889	125	4379
6	83.33	833	41.67	32407	100	3503
7	71.43	714	35.71	27778	83.33	2919
8	62.5	625	31.25	24306	71.43	2502
9	55.56	556	27.78	21605	62.5	2189
10	50	500	25	19444	55.56	1946
11	45.45	455	22.72	17677	50	1752
12	41.67	417	20.83	16204	45.45	1592
13	38.46	385	19.23	14957	41.67	1460
14	35.71	357	17.86	13889	38.46	1347
15	33.33	333	16.67	12963	35.71	1251
16	28.57	286	14.29	11111	33.33	1168
17	25	250	12.5	9722

水葡萄糖质量比	生长曲线	r	x拐点	极限值	满皿时间/h	最大比生长速率	最小倍增时间/h
500	y=82.63×(1+21.36e^-0.0493^x)^-1	-0.8149	62.15	82.63	62.48	0.316	2.194
250	y=89.18×(1+18.89e^-0.0435^x)^-1	-0.7943	67.52	89.18	66.15	0.278	2.493
166.67	y=88.20×(1+20.10e^-0.0461^x)^-1	-0.8042	65.16	88.20	64.10	0.273	2.539
125	y=88.49×(1+19.65e^-0.0455^x)^-1	-0.8043	65.42	88.49	64.28	0.267	2.596
100	y=87.75×(1+19.76e^-0.0460^x)^-1	-0.8071	64.85	87.75	63.90	0.259	2.676
83.33	y=93.48×(1+22.44e^-0.0468^x)^-1	-0.8005	66.48	93.48	64.20	0.256	2.708
71.43	y=86.06×(1+23.95e^-0.0505^x)^-1	-0.8145	62.93	86.06	62.45	0.249	2.784
62.5	y=88.21×(1+22.39e^-0.0481^x)^-1	-0.8063	64.68	88.21	63.66	0.248	2.795
55.56	y=90.01×(1+25.45e^-0.0481^x)^-1	-0.7939	67.30	90.01	65.64	0.245	2.829
50	y=87.72×(1+22.17e^-0.0457^x)^-1	-0.7940	67.78	87.72	66.82	0.242	2.864
45.45	y=88.82×(1+21.82e^-0.0443^x)^-1	-0.7861	69.60	88.82	68.34	0.241	2.876
41.67	y=93.04×(1+21.60e^-0.0438^x)^-1	-0.7867	70.11	93.04	67.77	0.239	2.900
38.46	y=81.90×(1+25.00e^-0.0494^x)^-1	-0.8036	65.22	81.90	65.73	0.234	2.962
35.71	y=81.64×(1+23.74e^-0.0470^x)^-1	-0.7948	67.38	81.64	67.99	0.229	3.027
33.33	y=78.75×(1+21.61e^-0.0455^x)^-1	-0.7939	67.53	78.75	68.95	0.221	3.136
28.57	y=80.17×(1+27.43e^-0.0495^x)^-1	-0.7917	66.96	80.17	66.96	0.204	3.398
25	y=75.66×(1+23.93e^-0.0495^x)^-1	-0.8069	64.18	75.66	66.29	0.184	3.767

水葡萄糖质量比	生长曲线	r	x拐点	极限值	满皿时间/h	最大比生长速率	最小倍增时间/h
500	y=82.63×(1+21.36e^-0.0493^x)^-1	-0.8149	62.15	82.63	62.48	0.316	2.194
250	y=89.18×(1+18.89e^-0.0435^x)^-1	-0.7943	67.52	89.18	66.15	0.278	2.493
166.67	y=88.20×(1+20.10e^-0.0461^x)^-1	-0.8042	65.16	88.20	64.10	0.273	2.539
125	y=88.49×(1+19.65e^-0.0455^x)^-1	-0.8043	65.42	88.49	64.28	0.267	2.596
100	y=87.75×(1+19.76e^-0.0460^x)^-1	-0.8071	64.85	87.75	63.90	0.259	2.676
83.33	y=93.48×(1+22.44e^-0.0468^x)^-1	-0.8005	66.48	93.48	64.20	0.256	2.708
71.43	y=86.06×(1+23.95e^-0.0505^x)^-1	-0.8145	62.93	86.06	62.45	0.249	2.784
62.5	y=88.21×(1+22.39e^-0.0481^x)^-1	-0.8063	64.68	88.21	63.66	0.248	2.795
55.56	y=90.01×(1+25.45e^-0.0481^x)^-1	-0.7939	67.30	90.01	65.64	0.245	2.829
50	y=87.72×(1+22.17e^-0.0457^x)^-1	-0.7940	67.78	87.72	66.82	0.242	2.864
45.45	y=88.82×(1+21.82e^-0.0443^x)^-1	-0.7861	69.60	88.82	68.34	0.241	2.876
41.67	y=93.04×(1+21.60e^-0.0438^x)^-1	-0.7867	70.11	93.04	67.77	0.239	2.900
38.46	y=81.90×(1+25.00e^-0.0494^x)^-1	-0.8036	65.22	81.90	65.73	0.234	2.962
35.71	y=81.64×(1+23.74e^-0.0470^x)^-1	-0.7948	67.38	81.64	67.99	0.229	3.027
33.33	y=78.75×(1+21.61e^-0.0455^x)^-1	-0.7939	67.53	78.75	68.95	0.221	3.136
28.57	y=80.17×(1+27.43e^-0.0495^x)^-1	-0.7917	66.96	80.17	66.96	0.204	3.398
25	y=75.66×(1+23.93e^-0.0495^x)^-1	-0.8069	64.18	75.66	66.29	0.184	3.767

变异来源	自由度	平方和	均方	F	P
处理间	16	0.355	0.022	8.82	0.001
误差	34	0.086	0.003
总变异	50	0.440