Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 329

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biological Control Agents Against Fusarium Wilt of Banana

Open access
Bubici, Giovanni, Kaushal, Manoj, Prigigallo, Maria Isabella, Gómez-Lama Cabanás, Carmen, Mercado-Blanco, Jesús·2019·Frontiers in Microbiology

Abstract

In the last century, the banana crop and industry experienced dramatic losses due to an epidemic of Fusarium wilt of banana (FWB), caused by Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense (Foc) race 1. An even more dramatic menace is now feared due to the spread of Foc tropical race 4. Plant genetic resistance is generally considered as the most plausible strategy for controlling effectively such a devastating disease, as occurred for the first round of FWB epidemic. Nevertheless, with at least 182 articles published since 1970, biological control represents a large body of knowledge on FWB. Remarkably, many studies deal with biological control agents (BCAs) that reached the field-testing stage and even refer to high effectiveness. Some selected BCAs have been repeatedly assayed in independent trials, suggesting their promising value. Overall under field conditions, FWB has been controlled up to 79% by using Pseudomonas spp. strains, and up to 70% by several endophytes and Trichoderma spp. strains. Lower biocontrol efficacy (42–55%) has been obtained with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, Bacillus spp., and non-pathogenic Fusarium strains. Studies on Streptomyces spp. have been mostly limited to in vitro conditions so far, with very few pot-experiments, and none conducted in the field. The BCAs have been applied with diverse procedures (e.g., spore suspension, organic amendments, bioformulations, etc.) and at different stages of plant development (i.e., in vitro, nursery, at transplanting, post-transplanting), but there has been no evidence for a protocol better than another. Nonetheless, new bioformulation technologies (e.g., nanotechnology, formulation of microbial consortia and/or their metabolites, etc.) and tailor-made consortia of microbial strains should be encouraged. In conclusion, the literature offers many examples of promising BCAs, suggesting that biocontrol can greatly contribute to limit the damage caused by FWB. More efforts should be done to further validate the currently available outcomes, to deepen the knowledge on the most valuable BCAs, and to improve their efficacy by setting up effective formulations, application protocols, and integrated strategies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00616

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 329

Metadata

Authors
Bubici, G., Kaushal, M., Prigigallo, M. I., Gómez-Lama Cabanás, C., & Mercado-Blanco, J.
Venue
Frontiers in Microbiology
Published
2019-04-05
Volume
10
Pages
616-616
ISSN
1664-302X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2927303252
Cited by
329
References
2
FWCI
24.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biological Control Agents Against Fusarium Wilt of Banana. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00616
The paper
Bubici, G., Kaushal, M., Prigigallo, M. I., Gómez-Lama Cabanás, C., & Mercado-Blanco, J. (2019). Biological Control Agents Against Fusarium Wilt of Banana. Frontiers in Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00616

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.