SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.37 número1Descripción y comparación entre morfotipos de Fusarium brachygibbosum, F. falciforme y F. oxysporum patogénicos en sandía cultivada en Sonora, México índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados




Links relacionados

  • Não possue artigos similaresSimilares em SciELO


Revista mexicana de fitopatología

versão On-line ISSN 2007-8080versão impressa ISSN 0185-3309

Rev. mex. fitopatol vol.37 no.1 Texcoco Jan. 2019  Epub 21-Ago-2020 

Scientific articles

Induced resistance to Puccinia sorghi and tar spot complex (Phyllachora maydis and others) in maize (Zea mays)

Federico Díaz Morales1 

Carlos De León García de Alba1  * 

Cristian Nava Díaz1 

María del Carmen Mendoza Castillo2 

1 Posgrado en Fitosanidad-Fitopatología, Colegio de Posgraduados, Km 36.5 Carretera México-Texcoco, Montecillo, Texcoco, Estado de México, CP 56230, México;

2 Posgrado en Genética, Colegio de Posgraduados, Km 36.5 Carretera México-Texcoco, Montecillo, Texcoco, Estado de México, CP 56230, México.


In order to prove the efficiency of products reported to induce disease resistance in crops, in 2016 and 2017, trials were established in the Experimental Station of the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Campus Toluca, with the commercial hybrid maize BG1384W. The products evaluated were Fosetyl-Al, Acibenzolar-S-metil, Bacillus subtilis, Trifloxystrobin + Tebuconazole, Harpin Protein and Clothianidin + Bacillus firmus. Efficiency of disease resistance inducers was studied in the control of common rust (Puccinia sorghi Schw.), and tar spot complex (Phyllachora maydis Maubl. and others), in two methods of application (soil and foliar application), and three dosages (recommended commercially, half of the recommended one, and recommended plus 50%) for each chemical. Agronomic data was recorded in a yield trial and disease severity for each disease. In 2016, severity was not affected by none of the products evaluated but Fosetyl-Al and Acibenzolar-S-metil increased grain yield. In 2017, Serenade decreased tar spot severity while Fosetyl-Al increased grain yield.

Key words: inducers; resistance; maize; Fosetil-Al; Bacillus subtilis


Para demostrar la eficiencia de productos inductores de la resistencia a enfermedades en maíz, en 2016 y 2017 se establecieron ensayos en el Campo Experimental de la Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Campus Toluca, con el híbrido de maíz comercial BG1384W, donde se estudió la eficiencia de seis agroquímicos como inductores de resistencia, incluyendo Fosetil-Al, Acibenzolar-S-metil, Bacillus subtilis, Tebuconazole + Trifloxystrobin, Proteína Harpin y Clotianidin + Bacillus firmus, para controlar la roya común (Puccinia sorghi Schw.) y el complejo de la mancha de asfalto (Phyllachora maydis Maubl. y otros), con dos formas de aplicación (al suelo y foliar) y tres dosis (comercial recomendada, mitad de la recomendada y recomendada más 50%) para cada agroquímico. Se registraron datos agronómicos en un ensayo de rendimiento y la severidad de las mencionadas enfermedades. En 2016, la severidad no fue afectada por ninguno de los agroquímicos, aunque se incrementó el rendimiento con las aplicaciones de Fosetil-Al y Acibenzolar-S-metil. En 2017, Bacillus subtilis disminuyó la severidad de la roya, mientras que Fosetil-Al redujo la severidad del complejo mancha de asfalto, pero mostró el rendimiento más bajo.

Palabras clave: inductores; resistencia; maíz; Fosetil-Al; Bacillus subtilis

Maize is the most important crop in Mexico, from food, industrial, political and social points of view (Saint and López, 1997). In 2017, the area planted with maize in the country was 1 144 590 ha, with an average grain yield of 6.477 t/ha (SIAP, SAGARPA, 2017). Maize has several phytosanitary problems, some of the most important of which are head smut (Sporisorium reilianum f. sp. zeae), which affects the tassel and ear, common smut (Ustilago maydis) which affects maily the ear, common rust (Puccinia sorghi Schwein) and the tar spot complex (TSC) (Phyllachora maydis Maubl. and others), which affects the leaves (CIMMYT, 2005). The TSC was first reported in Mexico by Maublanc (1904); the TSC was later determined to be caused by several fungi, where P. maydis is the first to be established, followed by Monographella maydis Müller and Samuels, and finally, inside the stromas of P. maydis, the hyperparasite Coniothyrium phyllachorae Maubl. settles (Hock et al., 1992). This disease may cause losses of up to 100% (Martínez and Espinosa, 2014). Common rust is widely distributed in subtropical and temperate climates with a high relative humidity (CIMMYT, 2005).

It is necessary to use plant disease control alternatives which have been implemented to control diseases in other pathosystems, especially in profitable crops, such as vegetable crops. There are few studies on resistance induction on grasses. Plant treatments with several agents, including virulent or avirulent plant pathogens, non-pathogens, plant extracts, and synthetic chemicals, may induce resistance to the attack of pathogens (Walters and Fountaine, 2009). Induction of resistance is defined as the increase in the expression of natural defense mechanisms of plants that leads them to protect themselves from diseases and insects that include both local and systemic responses (Riveros, 2001; Edreva, 2004), which range from physical barriers to the biochemical reactions with which cells alert each other in order to produce toxic substances that eliminate or inhibit the pest colonization (Riveros, 2001). This resistance increases when an adequate stimulus is provided by exogenous factors (Choudhary et al., 2007) without altering the plant genome (Kilian et al., 2000).

Induced resistance may be triggered by pre-inoculation with pathogenic, non-pathogenic, symbiotic and saprophytic agents or with the use of certain abiotic inducers, such as salicylic acid or microbial metabolites which stimulate the plant to produce natural defense substances against pathogens (Quintero and Castaño, 2012). When these are recognized by endogenous molecules they activate or increase the levels of resistance of the plant, both locally or in distal points of the place of infection, as well as to participate in other physiological activities (Schreiber and Desveaux, 2008). The interest in molecules that stimulate the plant’s natural mechanisms started during their participation in the control of pathogens and pests, since they have the potential to reduce and/or avoid the risk of emergence of pathogen populations or chemical-resistant pests, partially counteracting chemical damages caused by pesticides, and cause an increase in harvest yields (Guimarães et al., 2008).

The first resistance-activating chemical, Probenazole, was registered in Japan in 1975 as Oryzemate®, and since then many other activators have been developed, such as Acibenzolar-S-methyl (ASM), registered as Actigard® (Syngenta), Harpin Protein as Messenger® (Plant Health Care), and others (Walters et al., 2013). In strawberry plants, Fosetil-Al® (Bayer) induced resistance by reducing the severity of the crown rot (Phytophthora cactorum) and root rot (P. fragariae) (Eikemo et al., 2003), and in potato tubers, it displayed a greater accumulation and increase of enzymes β-1,3-glucanases and proteases, phytoalexins and phenolic compounds (Andreu et al., 2006). ASM, originally commercialized to control powdery mildew (Oidium sp.) in wheat and barley (Gorlach et al., 1996), is currently used to induce resistance to a wide range of plant pathogens, such as rust (Uromyces viciaefabae) and ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae) in broadbeans, under field and greenhouse conditions (Sillero et al., 2012). In pear plantations, it reduced blight severity (Venturia nashicola) with a control efficiency of 42% (Faize et al., 2004), and in Dominico-Harton bananas (Musa AAB) it was efficient in the control of the black Sigatoka (Mycosphaerella fijiensis), and yellow Sigatoka (M. musicola) by 80% (Márquez and Castaño, 2007). Mixing Tebuconazole® with Trifloxystrobin®, the combination of a triazole and a strobilurin, produced an increase in yield related to the control (Couretot et al., 2013). The application of resistance inducers in Dominico-Hartón seedlings against Sigatoka, including Propiconazol®, in the group of the triazoles, has proved to reduce the size of lesions and low severity rates for this disease (Mogollón et al., 2011), due to the inhibition of the demethylation of the C-14 of the lanosterol, a precursor of ergosterol of the pathogen’s cell membrane (Köller, 1992).

Species of the Bacillus genus are considered microbial factors producing various biologically active molecules, some of which are potential inhibitors of fungal growth (Schallmey et al., 2004). Bacillus subtilis is extremely tolerant to environmental stresses, including soil factors and long-term storage (Brannen and Kenney, 1997). Strain QTS 713 of B. subtilis is antagonistic to many phytopathogenic fungi, with an effect on competition for nutrients, exclusion of the site, colonization, and the union of bacteria to the fungus. It can also stop the germination of phytopathogenic fungi, interrupting the growth of the germ tube and inhibiting the adhesion of the pathogen to the leaf (EPA, 2006), due to compounds that display fungicidal activity. AgraQuest reports that strain QST 713 of B. subtilis induces systematic resistance of plants against phytopathogenic bacteria. Another important species of the Bacillus species is B. firmus, reported for the control of nematodes, a process based on several interactions of the bacteria with the nematodes or through the host, although there is still not a clear understanding of this interactions, allegedly based on several mechanisms that include enzyme action, degradation of root exudates and production of the phytohormone indol-acetic acid (EFSA, 2012). This microorganism, combined with Clothianidin, is effective against a variety of species, including a range of insect species (Coleóptera, Thysanóptera, Lepidóptera and Diptera).

The Harpin Protein was discovered by Wei et al. (1992), as an elicitor of the response of hypersensitivity caused by Erwinia amylovora. Currently, the product Messenger® of the company Planth Health, based on the Harpin Protein, activates a natural defense mechanism in the plant, known as systemic acquired resistance (SAR). Dong et al. (1999), reported that Harpin elicited a systemic resistance to Peronospora parasítica and Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato in wild Arabidopsis thaliana plants. Based on this, the aim of this study was to evaluate agrochemicals reported as inducers of resistance to diseases, and to obtain preliminary information on the resistance-inducing effect in maize against common rust and the tar spot complex.

Materials and methods

The first trial was planted in the El Cerrillo Experimental Field, of the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico (19° 10’ 25” N - 99° 37’ 02” W), on April 7, 2016 2016. A split split plot experimental design was used, in which main plots included six agrochemicals (Aliette, Actigard, Poncho Votivo, Serenade, Messenger and Consist Max) and one absolute control. As subplots, two application methods were included (foliar and on the soil), applying onto the soil by spraying the bottom of the furrow when planting, and foliar application was by spraying the plant 50 days after its emergence. Split splitplots consisted of 3 doses of the products: 1. Dose recommended on the product label, 2. Low dose, with 50% of the recommended dose, and 3. High dose, with the recommended dose plus 50% of this dose (Table 1). The experimental unit consisted of two 3 m long rows, 0.80 m between rows, with an area of 4.8 m2 and three repetitions. The maize seed used was of the commercial hybrid BG1384W (Biogene). The control treatments consisted of only water. The infection was of a natural incidence.

The second planting cycle (April 5th, 2017) was set up in the same Experimental Field. Due to a low plant emergence due to an attack of the corn seed worm (Hylemia sp.), the trial was entirely replanted on May 10th, repeating the same experimental design. In order to register the severity of the diseases, scales were used for common rust (Puccinia sorghi) and the tar spot complex (Phyllachora maydis and others). In rust and tar spot, severity was estimated using a visual scale of 1-5, where: 1=Resistant (with pustules in 10% of the foliar area), 2=Moderately resistant (pustules in 20-30% of the foliar area), 3=Moderately susceptible (pustules in 40-50 % of the foliar area), 4=Susceptible (pustules in 60-70% of the foliar area) and 5=Very susceptible (pustules in 100% of the foliar area). Agronomic data were collected from a yield trial (CIMMYT, 1985; IBPGR, 1991), including days at 50% of male and female flowering, plant and ear height, plant and ear aspect, number of healthy and rotten ears, weight of fresh grain at harvest adjusted to 15% humidity to obtain grain yield per hectare. The variables registered were placed under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) and values obtained were placed under a Tukey test.

Results and discussion

Planting cycle TO-2016. Acibenzolar-S-methyl and Tebuconazole + Trifloxystrobin and Bacillus subtilis delayed female flowering, whereas plots treated with Fosetil-Al and Cloatianidin + Bacillus firmus showed an acceleration in female flowering (Table 2). Male flowering was uniform throughout the experimental units. The difference in days between male and female flowering was of two days, which, according to López (1991), a minimal difference between pollen emission and the appearance of silks guarantee a good pollination and grain filling. On the other hand, for ASI (Anthesis-silking interval), Fosetil-Al showed the lowest value, which, according to Uribelarrea et al. (2002), is a desirable characteristic, since a high ASI value causes the reduction of yield, due to erratic silk pollination.

Table 1 Agrochemicals and doses used in evaluations TO-2016 and TO-201. 

Ingred. activo Nombre comercial Baja (B) Dosis Media (M) Alta (A)
1. Fosetil-Al 80% Aliette 625 g/ha 1250 g/ha 1875 g/ha
2. Acibenzolar-S-metil 500 g/l Actigard 30 g/ha 60 g/ha 90 g/ha
3. Trifloxystrobin + tebuconazole Consist Max 125 mL/ha 250 mL/ha 375 mL/ha
4. Cloatianidin 500 g/l + Bacillus firmus Poncho Votivo 40 mL/ha 80 mL/ha 120 mL/ha
5. Bacillus subtilis 1 x 109 UFC/g Serenade 2.5 L/ha 5 L/ha 7.5 L/ha
6. Proteína Harpin 3% Messenger 75 g/ha 150 g/ha 225 g/ha
7. Testigo -------------- -------------- -------------

Plots treated with Fosetil-Al showed a statistically significant increase in plant and ear height, whereas the Harpin Protein reduced them. For the plant balance, all agrochemicals had values of 0.50, a desirable value in the crop to obtain an adequate balance to avoid lodging.

For the ear aspect, there were no statistical differences. Between treatments, the control (untreated plots) showed the lowest number of rotten ears, while plots treated with Fosetil-Al had the highest number of rotten ears. Regardless of this, Fosetil-Al and Acibenzolar-S-metil showed a statistically higher yield with 5.7 and 5.9 t ha-1, respectively. The lowest yield obtained was with the Harpin Protein.

Based on the scale of severity used to evaluate the damage caused by the common rust and TSC, the plants displayed a lower severity of these two foliar diseases. For TSC, the product Clothianidin + Bacillus firmus y Fosetyl-Al showed the highest severity with 1.6 (Table 2) in comparison with the average of 1.4 and the control with 1.2. Likewise for rust severity, plants from plots treated with Clothianidin + Bacillus firmus, statistically had a higher severity value (1.3), compared with the average of 1.2 and the control of 1.0. Table 2 shows that, despite this observation, the plots treated with Clothianidin + Bacillus firmus had a higher yield in comparison to the control, which has a lower disease severity value. This may be attributed to the characteristics of Bacillus, given that these organisms contribute to the productivity of crops, since they are located in the rhizosphere and colonize the roots of plants, promoting the growth of rhizobacteria that contribute to a greater absorption of nutrients (Schallmey et al., (2004).

Table 2.  Separation of measurements of agrochemicals, means of application and doses using Tukey’s test (α=0.05) for the variable of agricultural characteristics and disease severity. TO-2016. 

Aliette 108.2 a* 109.4 b* 1.0 b* 178.7 a* 94.0 a* 0.5 ab* 1.9 a* 1.1 a* 5.7 a 1.6 a* 1.2 ab*
Testigo 108.2 a 110.2 ab 1.0 a 165.2 abc 78.0 bc 0.4 c 2.2 a 0.1 b 4.7 abc 1.2 b 1.0 b
Serenade 108.4 a 110.2 a 1.0 a 159.0 bc 81.5 abc 0.5 abc 2.2 a 0.3 ab 4.7 abc 1.3 ab 1.1 ab
Poncho Votivo 108.0 a 109.4 b 1.0 a 174.4 ab 87.1 abc 0.5 bc 2.3 a 0.7 ab 5.6 ab 1.6 a 1.3 a
Messenger 108.4 a 110.0 ab 1.0 a 153.3 c 74.5 c 0.5 bc 2.5 a 0.4 ab 3.3 c 1.3 ab 1.1 ab
Actigard 108.4 a 110.3 a 1.0 a 171.9 abc 88.3 ab 0.5 abc 2.4 a 0.7 ab 5.9 a 1.3 ab 1.3 ab
Consist Max 108.4 a 110.3 a 1.0 a 154.3 c 84.7 abc 0.5 a 2.5 a 0.5 ab 3.4 bc 1.4 ab 1.2 ab
Suelo 108.3 a 110.0 a 1.0 a 165.3 a 83.2 a 0.5 a 2.2 a 0.5 a 4.6 a 1.3 a 1.2 a
Foliar 108.3 a 110.0 a 1.0 a 165.1 a 84.9 a 0.5 a 2.4 a 0.6 a 5.0 a 1.4 a 1.2 a
Alta 108.3 a 110.0 a 1.0 a 165.4 a 86.65 a 0.5 a 2.2 a 0.6 a 4.8 a 1.4 a 1.1 b
Media 108.2 a 109.9 a 1.0 a 164.1 a 82.09 a 0.5 a 2.4 a 0.6 a 4.9 a 1.4 a 1.2 ab
Baja 108.4 a 110.0 a 1.0 a 166.1 a 86.65 a 0.5 a 2.3 a 0.4 a 4.7 a 1.4 a 1.23 a
CV 0.6 0.7 0.7 6.8 13.4 11.7 23.7 118.8 27.4 22.7 21.2
Media 108.3 109.9 1.0 165.2 84.0 0.5 2.3 0.5 4.8 1.4 1.2

*Valores seguidos de la misma letra no son diferentes entre ellos / Values followed by the same letter display no differences with one another.

FM=días a 50% de floración masculina, FF=días a 50% de floración femenina, RFM=relación floración femenina/masculino, AlP=altura de planta, AlM=altura de mazorca, BMP=balance de mazorca/planta, AsM=aspecto de mazorca, MP=mazorcas podridas, RG=rendimiento de grano ajustado, SCMA=severidad de complejo mancha de asfalto, SR=severidad de roya común / FM=days to 50% of male flowering, FF=days to 50% of female flowering, RFM= female/male flowering ratio, AlP=plant height, AlM=ear height, BMP=ear/plant balance, AsM=ear aspect, MP=rotten ears, RG=yield of grain, adjusted, SCMA=severity of tar spot complex, SR=severity of common rust.

Planting cycle TO-2017. Fosetil-Al was found to accelerate flowering, while Acibenzolar-S-methyl and Trifloxystrobin + Tebuconazole delayed it (Table 3). For the variable female/male flowering, it was found that agrochemicals, means of application and dose had the same effect, indicating a minimum difference between pollen emission and the appearance of silks, which guarantee an adequate grain (López, 1991). Acibenzolar-S-methyl registered the greatest plant height with 173.5 cm, followed by Tebuconazole + Trifloxystrobin with 172.3 cm., and Bacillus subtilis presented the lowest plant height with 152.4 cm. However, there was no significant difference in ear height. In plant balance, Tebuconazole + Trifloxystrobin and Acibenzolar-S-metil had the desirable plant balance value of 0.5.

Plant aspect was negatively affected with the fungicide Fosetil-Al and plants from the untreated plots had the best aspect. Ear aspect was equal in all plots, despite some of them having desireable or undesirable aspects. This coincides with Guimarães et al. (2008), who reported that the use of inducers may lead to physiological effects, as in the case of Acibenzolar-S-methyl applied on cotton plants that presented a reduction in plant height, dry and fresh weight of stems, due to the activation of the resistance imposing a demand of energy in the plants (Dietrich et al., 2005), and a reduction of metabolytes for growth and other important physiological processes (Heil et al., 2002).

The highest grain yield was obtained with Tebuconazole + Trifloxystrobin (5.7 t ha-1), and the lowest, with Fosetil-Al (3.6 t ha-1). The results for yield with the Tebuconazole + Trifloxystrobin treatment coincide with reports by Couretot et al. (2013), who mention that the mixture of triazoles and estrobilurines increases yield.

For this cycle, two evaluations were done for the severity of P. sorghi, in which, as in the first cycle, averages indicate that plants of the plot range from moderately resistant to resistant (Table 3). In the first evaluation, Serenade® (Bacillus subtilis) reduced the severity of rust, which coincides with reports by the company AgraQuest, who indicate that B. subtilis induces the natural resistance of plants. Also, Maget and Peypoux (1994) mention that compounds called Iturines, produced by this organism, display activity against plant pathogenic fungi. Various reports indicate that this bacteria can stop germination of the pathogen’s spores by interrupting the growth of the germinative tube and inhibiting the union of the pathogen with the plant leaf (EPA, 2006).

In the second rust evaluation, there were no significant differences in the severities of the plants treated; however, Serenade® (Bacillus subtilis), which gave the lowest severity value in the first evaluation, is found in the same statistical group with the other products. In order to maintain the previously observed effect it may be necessary to make a second application, as mentioned by Rohilla et al. (2001), who point out that the degree of protection provided by the application of a fungicide, whether on the ground or foliar, decreases with time. There are also various reports of resistance elicitors which do not provide a significant control of the disease when compared to the control (Mogollón and Castaño, 2011) since, in the field, the expression of induced resistance is influenced by the environment, genotype and nutrition (Walters et al., 2005).

Table 3.  Separation of averages of treatments, means of application and doses using Tukey’s test (α=0.05) for the variable of agricultural characteristics and disease severity. TO-2017. 

Aliette 103.4 a 104.2 a 1.0 a 152.6 a 68.8 a 0.4 a 2.6 a 3.6 a 0.7 a 3.6 b 1.9 b 1.6 ab 1.9 a
Testigo 103.0 ab 104.3 a 1.0 a 171.0 a 78.9 a 0.4 a 1.9 b 2.5 a 1.2 a 5.3 ab 2.7 a 1.5 ab 1.8 a
Serenade 102.9 ab 104.0 a 1.0 a 152.4 a 67.7 a 0.4 a 2.3 ab 3.2 a 0.9 a 4.3 ab 2.2 ab 1.4 b 1.9 a
Poncho Votivo 102.8 ab 103.9 a 1.0 a 160.7 a 70.9 a 0.4 a 2.1 ab 2.9 a 1.1 a 4.8 ab 2.1 ab 1.7 ab 1.8 a
Messenger 102.7 ab 103.6 a 1.0 a 155.9 a 69.7 a 0.4 a 2.1 ab 3.2 a 1.1 a 5.2 ab 2.4 ab 1.6 ab 1.8 a
Actigard 102.5 b 103.9 a 1.0 a 173.5 a 80.5 a 0.5 a 2.1 ab 2.9 a 1.2 a 5.3 ab 2.6 ab 2.0 a* 2.0 a
Consist Max 102.4 b 104.0 a 1.0 a 172.3 a 80.3 a 0.5 a 2.1 ab 2.6 a 1.0 a 5.7 a 2.5 ab 1.8 ab 1.9 a
Suelo 102.9 a 104.0 a 1.0 a 164.7 a 74.7 a 0.4 a 2.2 a 3.0 a 1.0 a 4.8 a 2.4 a 1.7 a 1.9 a
Foliar 102.7 a 103.9 a 1.0 a 161.2 a 72.9 a 0.4 a 2.2 a 3.0 a 1.0 a 5.0 a 2.3 a 1.6 a 1.8 a
Alta 102.9 a 103.9 a 1.0 a 159.9 a 72.2 a 0.4 a 2.2 a 3.0 a 0.9 a 4.9 a 2.3 a 1.7 a 1.9 a
Media 102.8 a 104.0 a 1.0 a 166.3 a 75.7 a 0.4 a 2.1 a 2.9 a 1.3 a 5.0 a 2.5 a 1.6 a 1.9 a
Baja 102.7 a 104.0 a 1.0 a 161.7 a 73.5 a 0.4 a 2.2 a 3.1 a 0.9 a 4.7 a 2.3 a 1.7 a 1.7 a
CV 0.9 0.9 0.9 9.6 16.3 11.3 24.7 26.8 107.9 22.3 27.8 25.7 30.1
Media 102.8 104.0 1.0 162.6 73.8 0.4 2.2 3.0 1.0 4.9 2.3 1.7 1.9

*Valores seguidos de la misma letra no son diferentes entre ellos / Values followed by the same letter display no differences with one another.

FM=días a 50% de floración masculina, FF=días a 50% de floración femenina, RFM=relación floración femenino/masculino, AlP=altura de planta, AlM=altura de mazorca, BMP=balance de mazorca/planta, AsP=aspecto de planta, AsM=aspecto de mazorca, MP=mazorcas podridas, RG=rendimiento de grano ajustado, SCMA=severidad de complejo mancha de asfalto, SR=severidad de roya común primera evaluación, SR2=severidad de roya común segunda evaluación / FM=days to 50% of male flowering, FF= days to 50% of female flowering, RFM= female/male flowering ratio, AlP=plant height, AlM=ear height, BMP=ear/plant balance, AsP=plant aspect, AsM=ear aspect, MP=rotten ears, RG=yield of grain, adjusted, SCMA= severity of tar spot complex, SR=severity of common rust, first evaluation, SR2= severity of common rust, second evaluation.

Fosetil-Al showed a higher efficiency by reducing the severity of the TSC, presenting the lowest value in comparison to the control, which had the highest value for severity (Table 3). The active ingredient of this product is reported as a resistance inducer in several crops, including strawberry, since it reduces the severity of crown rot (P. cactorum), root rot (P. fragariae) (Eikemo et al., 2003), and in potato tubers, when applying it to control P. infestans, where it showed a greater accumulation and increase of enzymes β-1,3-glucanases, proteases, phytoalexins and phenolic compounds (Andreu et al., 2006), related with plant defenses. Although Fosetil-Al displayed the lowest TSC severity value, it did not increase grain yield. Guimarães et al. (2008), mention that inducing resistance in plants may have physiological effects, since the activation of resistance imposes high demands of energy on the plant (Dietrich et al., 2005) and a reduction of metabolytes for growth and other important plant processes (Heil and Baldwin., 2002).


Both diseases in which resistance inducers were evaluated were present in both planting cycles. In the TO-16 cycle, none of the agrochemicals reduced the severity of rust and TSC, although Tebuconazole + Trifloxystrobin increased grain yield. For cycle TO-2017, Serenade proved to be the best agrochemical in reducing the severity of P. sorghi, while Fosetil-Al showed the best effect on reducing the severity of the TSC, but Tebuconazole + Trifloxystrobin induced a higher grain yield. The disease severities were not affected by the application method. There were significant differences between doses, since the severity of rust decreased when using high doses of agrochemicals.

Literatura citada

Andreu BA, Guevara GM, Wolski E, Daleo G, and Caldiz D. 2006. Enhancement of the natural disease resistance of potatoes by chemicals. Pest Management Science 62:162-170. [ Links ]

Brannen PM, and Kenney DS. 1997. Kodiak®-a successful biological-control product for suppression of soil-borne plant pathogens of cotton. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology 19:169-171. [ Links ]

Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT). 1985. Managing trials and reporting data for CIMMYT´s international maize testing program, Mexico, D.F. Disponible en línea: ]

Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT). 2005. Enfermedades del maíz. Una guía para su identificación en campo. Disponible en línea: ]

Choudhary DK, Prakash A, and Johri BN. 2007. Induced systemic resistance (ISR) in plants: mechanism of action. Indian Journal of Microbiology 47:289-297. [ Links ]

Couretot L, Parisi L, Hirsch M, Suarez ML, Magnone G. y Ferraris G. 2013. Principales enfermedades del cultivo de maíz en las últimas campañas y su manejo. 7 p. Disponible en línea: ]

Dietrich R, Ploss K, and Heil M. 2005. Growth responses and fitness costs after induction of pathogen resistance depend on environmental conditions. Plant, Cell and Environment 28:211-222. [ Links ]

Dong H, Delaney TP Bauer DW, and Beer SV. 1999. Harpin induces disease resistance in Arabidopsis through the systemic acquired resistance pathway mediated by salicylic acid and the NIM1 gene. The Plant Journal 20(2):207-215. Disponible en línea: ]

Edreva A. 2004. A novel strategy for plant protection: Induced resistance. Journal of cell and Molecular Biology 3:61-69. Disponible en línea: ]

Eikemo H, Stensvand A, and Tronsmo AM. 2003. Induced resistance as a possible means to control diseases of strawberry caused by Phytophthora spp. Plant Disease 87(4):345-350. Disponible en línea: ]

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Bacillus subtilis Strain 713 (006479) Biopesticide. (consulta, mayo 2018) [ Links ]

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2012. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Bacillus firmus I-1582. EFSA Journal 10:2868. [ Links ]

Faize M, Faize L, Koike N, Ishizaka M, and Ishii H. 2004. Acibenzolars-methyl-induced resistance to Japanese pear scab is associated with potentiation of multiple defense responses. Phytopathology 94:604-612. [ Links ]

Guimarães BMA, Laranjeira D, and Barbosa RS. 2008. Physiological cost of induced resistance in cotton plants at different nitrogen levels. Summa Phytopathologica 34:338-342. [ Links ]

Gorlach J, Volrath S, Knauf F, Hengy G, Beckhove U, Kogel KH, Oostendorp M, Staub T, Ward E, Kessmann H, and Ryals J. 1996. Benzothiadiazole, a novel class of inducers of systemic acquired resistance, activates gene expression and disease resistance in wheat. Plant Cell 8:629-643. [ Links ]

Heil M, and Baldwin IT. 2002. Fitness costs of induced resistance: emerging experimental support for a slippery concept. Trends in Plant Science 7:61-67. [ Links ]

Hock J, Dittrich U, Renfro BL, and Kranz J. 1992. Sequential development of pathogens in the maze tarspot disease complex. Mycopathologia 117:157-161. [ Links ]

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR), 1991. Descriptors for maize. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. México City. 88p. Disponible en línea: ]

Kilian M, Steiner U, Krebs B, Junge H, Schmiedeknecht G, and Hain R. 2000. FZB24 Bacillus subtilis-mode of action of a microbial agent enhancing plant vitality. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer 53:72-93. [ Links ]

Köller W. 1992. Antifungal agents with target sites in sterol functions and biosynthesis. p.119-206. In: Koller W. Target Sites of Fungicide Action. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. 328 p. Disponible en línea: ]

López L. 1991. Cultivos herbáceos “Cereales”. Vol I. Ediciones Mundi-Prensa. España. 539 p. [ Links ]

Maget DR, and Peypoux F. 1994. Iturins, a special class of poreforming lipopeptides: biological and physicochemical properties. Toxicology 87:151-174. [ Links ]

Martínez SJ y Espinosa PN. 2014. Sugerencias para el control del “complejo mancha de asfalto” del maíz en la Frailesca, Chiapas. Folleto para productores No. 13. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias. Centro de Investigación Regional Pacífico Sur. Campo experimental centro de Chiapas Ocozocoautla, Chiapas, México. 15 p. Disponible en línea: DOI:10.13140/2.1.3799.5842 [ Links ]

Márquez C, Castaño ZJ. 2007. Inducción de resistencia a sigatokas en plántulas de plátano Dominico-Hartón. Agronomía 15(2):49-57. Disponible en línea: ]

Maublanc, A. 1904. Especes nouvelles de champignons inferiurs. Bulletin de la Société Mycologique de France. 20(2):70-74. Disponible en línea: ]

Mogollón OA y Castaño ZJ. 2011. Efecto de inductores de resistencia en plántulas de plátano dominico hartón (Musa balbisiana AAB) contra Mycosphaerella spp. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales 35:463-472. [ Links ]

Quintero VC y Castaño ZJ. 2012. Evaluación de inductores de resistencia para el manejo de nematodos fitoparásitos en plántulas de plátano. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. 36:575-586. [ Links ]

Riveros AS. 2001. Moléculas activadoras de la inducción de resistencia, incorporadas en programas de agricultura sostenible. Manejo integrado de plagas 61: 4-11. Disponible en línea: ]

Rohilla R, Singh US, and Singh RL. 2001. Mode of action of Acibenzolar-S-methyl against sheath blight of rice, caused by Rhizoctonia solani Kühn. Pest Management. Science 58:63-69. [ Links ]

Saint G y López PMA. 1997. Producción de maíz y políticas agrícolas en Centro América y México CIMMYT. San José, Costa Rica. 39p. Disponible en línea: ]

SIAP-SAGARPA. 2014. Servicio de información agroalimentaria y pesca- Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación. Anuario Estadístico de la Producción Agrícola. (consultado, mayo 2018). [ Links ]

Schallmey M, Singh A, and Ward OP. 2004. Developments in the use of Bacillus species for industrial production. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 50:1-17. [ Links ]

Schreiber K, and Desveaux D. 2008. Message in a bottle: Chemical biology of induced resistance in plants. The Plant Pathology Journal 24:245-268. [ Links ]

Sillero JC, Rojas MM, Avila CM, and Rubiales D. 2012. Induction of systemic acquired resistance against rust, ascochyta blight and broomrape in faba bean by exogenous application of salicylic acid and benzothiadiazole. Crop Protection 34:65-69. [ Links ]

Uribelarrea M, Cárcova J, Otegui ME, and Westgate ME. 2002. Pollen production, pollination dynamics, and kernel set in maize. Crop Science 42:1910-1918. [ Links ]

Walters DR, Walsh D, Newton A, and Lyon G. 2005. Induced resistance for plant disease control: maximizing the efficacy of resistance elicitors. The American Phytopathological Society 95:1368-1373. [ Links ]

Walters DR, and Fountaine JM. 2009. Practical application of induced resistance to plant diseases: an appraisal of effectiveness under field conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science 147:523-535. [ Links ]

Walters DR, Ratsep J, and Havis ND. 2013. Controlling crop diseases using induced resistance: Challenges for the future. Journal of Experimental Botany 64:1263-1280. [ Links ]

Wei Z, Laby R, Zumoff C, Bauer D, Ho SY, Collmer A, and Beer S. 1992. Harpin, elicitor of the hypersensitive response produced by the plant pathogen Erwinia amylovora. Science 257:85-88. [ Links ]

Received: July 18, 2018; Accepted: September 25, 2018

* Corresponding author:

Creative Commons License Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons