Biological control of postharvest diseases of fruits and vegetables by microbial antagonists: A review
Abstract
Postharvest diseases cause considerable losses to harvested fruits and vegetables during transportation and storage. Synthetic fungicides are primarily used to control postharvest decay loss. However, the recent trend is shifting toward safer and more eco-friendly alternatives for the control of postharvest decays. Of various biological approaches, the use of antagonistic microorganisms is becoming popular throughout the world. Several postharvest diseases can now be controlled by microbial antagonists. Although the mechanism(s) by which microbial antagonists suppress the postharvest diseases is still unknown, competition for nutrients and space is most widely accepted mechanism of their action. In addition, production of antibiotics, direct parasitism, and possibly induced resistance in the harvested commodity are other modes of their actions by which they suppress the activity of postharvest pathogens in fruits and vegetables. Microbial antagonists are applied either before or after harvest, but postharvest applications are more effective than preharvest applications. Mixed cultures of the microbial antagonists appear to provide better control of postharvest diseases over individual cultures or strains. Similarly, the efficacy of the microbial antagonist(s) can be enhanced if they are used with low doses of fungicides, salt additives, and physical treatments like hot water dips, irradiation with ultraviolet light etc. At the international level, different microbial antagonists like Debaryomyces hansenii Lodder & Krejer-van Rij, Cryptococcus laurentii Kufferath & Skinner, Bacillus subtilis (Ehrenberg) Cohn, and Trichoderma harzianum Rifai, are being used. Biocontrol products like Aspire, BioSave, and Shemer etc., have also been developed and registered. Although the results of this technology are encouraging, we need to continue to explore potential uses on the commercial scale in different corners of the world.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In agriculture, yeasts have been identified as powerful antagonists of fungal pathogens causing postharvest and storage diseases and of microorganisms attacking flowers and leaves.
“In agriculture, yeasts have been identified as powerful antagonists of fungal pathogens causing postharvest and storage diseases and of microorganisms attacking flowers and leaves [25–31].”
From Competition assays and physiological experiments of soil and phyllosphere yeasts identify Candida subhashii as a novel antagonist of filamentous fungi (2017) · cites this paper as [28]
Cites
Wisniewski, M., Biles, C., Droby, S., McLaughlin, R., Wilson, C., & Chalutz, E. (1991) · Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology · doi:10.1016/0885-5765(91)90033-e · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Saravanakumar, D., Ciavorella, A., Spadaro, D., Garibaldi, A., & Gullino, M. L. (2008) · Postharvest Biology and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2007.11.006 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Leibinger, W., Breuker, B., Hahn, M., & Mendgen, K. (1997) · Phytopathology® · doi:10.1094/phyto.1997.87.11.1103 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Karabulut, O. A., Smilanick, J. L., Gabler, F. M., Mansour, M., & Droby, S. (2003) · Plant Disease · doi:10.1094/pdis.2003.87.11.1384 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Castoria, R., De Curtis, F., Lima, G., & De Cicco, V. (1997) · Postharvest Biology and Technology · doi:10.1016/s0925-5214(97)00061-6 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Spadaro, D., & Droby, S. (2016) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2015.11.003 · Cited by 732 · see citing works
Antifungal Microbial Agents for Food Biopreservation—A Review
Leyva Salas, M., Mounier, J., Valence, F., Coton, M., Thierry, A., & Coton, E. (2017) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms5030037 · Cited by 349 · see citing works
Grande-Tovar, C. D., Chaves-Lopez, C., Serio, A., Rossi, C., & Paparella, A. (2018) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2018.05.019 · Cited by 242 · see citing works
THE USE OF PLANTS TO PROTECT PLANTS AND FOOD AGAINST FUNGAL PATHOGENS: A REVIEW
Shuping, D. S. S., & Eloff, J. N. (2017) · African Journal of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicines · doi:10.21010/ajtcam.v14i4.14 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Zakaria, L. (2021) · Agriculture · doi:10.3390/agriculture11040297 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
Chen, X., Zhang, Y., Fu, X., Li, Y., & Wang, Q. (2016) · Postharvest Biology and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2015.12.021 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Huang, R., Che, H. J., Zhang, J., Yang, L., Jiang, D. H., & Li, G. Q. (2012) · Biological Control · doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.02.010 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Hilber-Bodmer, M., Schmid, M., Ahrens, C. H., & Freimoser, F. M. (2017) · BMC Microbiology · doi:10.1186/s12866-016-0908-z · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Konsue, W., Dethoup, T., & Limtong, S. (2020) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms8030317 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Stress-Tolerant Yeasts: Opportunistic Pathogenicity Versus Biocontrol Potential
Zajc, J., Gostinčar, C., Černoša, A., & Gunde-Cimerman, N. (2019) · Genes · doi:10.3390/genes10010042 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Kowalska, J., Rożdżyński, D., Remlein-Starosta, D., Sas-Paszt, L., & Malusá, E. (2012) · Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection · doi:10.1007/bf03356438 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sharma, R. R., Singh, D., & Singh, R.
- Affiliations
- Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IN)
- Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Sharma, R.R.
- Venue
- Biological Control
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 205-221
- ISSN
- 1049-9644 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2076370029
- Cited by
- 1,015
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 97 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 83 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 45
- FWCI
- 42.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Biological Control (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Postharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Fungal Plant Pathogen Control
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Listeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
- Keywords
- postharvest disease, microbial antagonists, fruits and vegetables, postharvest decay, nutrient competition, induced resistance, mixed culture, fungicide reduction, hot water immersion, UV irradiation, Debaryomyces hansenii, Cryptococcus laurentii, Bacillus subtilis, Trichoderma harzianum, biocontrol products
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review