Paper · 2022 · Microorganisms

Biocontrol Potential of Chitin and Chitosan Extracted from Black Soldier Fly Pupal Exuviae against Bacterial Wilt of Tomato

Violah Kemboi; Carolyne Kipkoech; Moses Njire; et al.

6
claims
16
verbatim quotes
55
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Globally, Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) is ranked one of the most destructive bacterial pathogens inducing rapid and fatal wilting symptoms on tomatoes. Yield losses on tomatoes vary from 0 to 91% and most control measures are unaffordable to resource-poor farmers. This study investigated the antimicrobial activities of chitin and chitosan extracted from black soldier fly (BSF) pupal exuviae against R. solanacearum. Morphological, biochemical, and molecular techniques were used to isolate and characterize R. solanacearum for in vitro pathogenicity test using disc diffusion technique. Our results revealed that BSF chitosan significantly inhibited the growth of R. solanacearum when compared to treatments without chitosan. However, there was no significant difference in the antibacterial activities between BSF and commercial chitosan against R. solanacearum. Soil amended with BSF-chitin and chitosan demonstrated a reduction in bacterial wilt disease incidence by 30.31% and 34.95%, respectively. Whereas, disease severity was reduced by 22.57% and 23.66%, when inoculated tomato plants were subjected to soil amended with BSF chitin and chitosan, respectively. These findings have demonstrated that BSF pupal shells are an attractive renewable raw material for the recovery of valuable products (chitin and chitosan) with promising ability as a new type of eco-friendly control measure against bacterial wilt caused by R. solanacearum. Further studies should explore integrated pest management options that integrate multiple components including insect-based chitin and chitosan to manage bacterial wilt diseases, contributing significantly to increased tomato production worldwide.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

BSF chitosan significantly inhibited growth of R. solanacearum compared with treatments without chitosan

Treatment
BSF chitosane2
Interactor
R. solanacearumRalstonia solanacearume2pathogen
Outcome
growth of R. solanacearume2
Direction
inhibitede2
Comparator
treatments without chitosane2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ralstonia solanacearum
Ralstonia solanacearum · InteractorClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series, Bugwood.org · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e2

“Our results revealed that BSF chitosan significantly inhibited the growth of R. solanacearum when compared to treatments without chitosan”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 592–729 · show in text ↑
t0

“Bacterial Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–123 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

BSF and commercial chitosan did not differ in antibacterial activity against R. solanacearum

Treatment
BSFe3
Interactor
R. solanacearumRalstonia solanacearume3pathogen
Outcome
antibacterial activitiese3
Direction
no significant differencee3
Comparator
commercial chitosane3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ralstonia solanacearum
Ralstonia solanacearum · InteractorClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series, Bugwood.org · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e3

“However, there was no significant difference in the antibacterial activities between BSF and commercial chitosan against R. solanacearum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 731–867 · show in text ↑
t0

“Bacterial Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–123 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil amended with BSF-chitin reduced bacterial wilt disease incidence in tomato by 30.31%

Treatment
Soil amended with BSF-chitine4
Interactor
Ralstonia solanacearumRalstonia solanacearume1pathogen
Outcome
bacterial wilt disease incidencee4
Direction
reductione4
Value
30.31%e4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ralstonia solanacearum
Ralstonia solanacearum · InteractorClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series, Bugwood.org · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Globally, Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) is ranked one of the most destructive bacterial pathogens inducing rapid and fatal wilting symptoms on tomatoes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–152 · show in text ↑
e4

“Soil amended with BSF-chitin and chitosan demonstrated a reduction in bacterial wilt disease incidence by 30.31% and 34.95%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 869–1006 · show in text ↑
t0

“Bacterial Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–123 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil amended with BSF chitosan reduced bacterial wilt disease incidence in tomato by 34.95%

Treatment
Soil amended with BSF-chitin and chitosane4
Interactor
Ralstonia solanacearumRalstonia solanacearume1pathogen
Outcome
bacterial wilt disease incidencee4
Direction
reductione4
Value
34.95%e4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ralstonia solanacearum
Ralstonia solanacearum · InteractorClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series, Bugwood.org · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Globally, Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) is ranked one of the most destructive bacterial pathogens inducing rapid and fatal wilting symptoms on tomatoes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–152 · show in text ↑
e4

“Soil amended with BSF-chitin and chitosan demonstrated a reduction in bacterial wilt disease incidence by 30.31% and 34.95%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 869–1006 · show in text ↑
t0

“Bacterial Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–123 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil amended with BSF chitin reduced disease severity in inoculated tomato by 22.57%

Treatment
soil amended with BSF chitine5
Interactor
Ralstonia solanacearumRalstonia solanacearume1pathogen
Outcome
disease severitye5
Direction
reducede5
Value
22.57%e5

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ralstonia solanacearum
Ralstonia solanacearum · InteractorClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series, Bugwood.org · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Globally, Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) is ranked one of the most destructive bacterial pathogens inducing rapid and fatal wilting symptoms on tomatoes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–152 · show in text ↑
e5

“Whereas, disease severity was reduced by 22.57% and 23.66%, when inoculated tomato plants were subjected to soil amended with BSF chitin and chitosan, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1008–1171 · show in text ↑
t0

“Bacterial Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–123 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil amended with BSF chitin and chitosan reduced disease severity in inoculated tomato by 23.66%

Treatment
soil amended with BSF chitin and chitosane5
Interactor
Ralstonia solanacearumRalstonia solanacearume1pathogen
Outcome
disease severitye5
Direction
reducede5
Value
23.66%e5

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ralstonia solanacearum
Ralstonia solanacearum · InteractorClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series, Bugwood.org · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Globally, Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) is ranked one of the most destructive bacterial pathogens inducing rapid and fatal wilting symptoms on tomatoes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–152 · show in text ↑
e5

“Whereas, disease severity was reduced by 22.57% and 23.66%, when inoculated tomato plants were subjected to soil amended with BSF chitin and chitosan, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1008–1171 · show in text ↑
t0

“Bacterial Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–123 · show in text ↑

chitosan · Ralstonia solanacearum · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

resistance inducer · Ralstonia solanacearum · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.