Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jan 13;15(1):e0227556. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227556

Root treatment with oxathiapiprolin, benthiavalicarb or their mixture provides prolonged systemic protection against oomycete foliar pathogens

Yigal Cohen 1,*
Editor: Binod Bihari Sahu2
PMCID: PMC6957293  PMID: 31929586

Abstract

Oxathiapiprolin is a fungicide effective against downy mildews of cucumber (Pseudoperonospora cubensis) and basil (Peronospora belbahrii) and late blight of tomato (Phytophthora infestans). To avoid fungicide resistance, it is recommended to apply oxathiapiprolin as a mixture with a partner fungicide that have a different mode of action. Here it is shown that a single application of oxathiapiprolin, benthiavalicarb, or their mixture (3+7, w/w) to the root of nursery plants grown in multi-cell trays provided prolonged systemic protection against late blight and downy mildews in growth chambers and in field tests. Soil application of 1mg active ingredient per plant provided durable protection of up to four weeks in tomato against late blight, cucumber against downy mildew and basil against downy mildew. Not only did the mixture of oxathiapiprolin and benthiavalicarb provide excellent systemic control of these diseases but also mutual protection against resistance towards both oxathiapiprolin and benthiavalicarb.

Introduction

Oxathiapiprolin is a piperidinyl-thiazole-isoxazoline fungicide (FRAC code 49) [1, 2] with extremely high activity against plant pathogenic oomycetes [3–11] except Pythium species [2]. Oxathiapiprolin is effective when applied preventatively or curatively to the foliage or to the root system [12,13] and shows translaminar and acropetally systemic translocation [2, 3, 5,11].

The molecular target of oxathiapiprolin is the oxysterol binding protein (OSBP) [2,14], a member of the OSBP-related proteins family of lipid transfer proteins [15]. The target proteins of oxathiapiprolin in Phytophthora capsici and Pseudoperonospora cubensis genome were annotated, but their function was not disclosed[5, 16].

Oxathiapiprolin is a high-risk fungicide [5, 12, 14, 16], which requires careful use in the field to avoid buildup of resistant mutant isolates [17, 18].

Available oxathiapiprolin-based fungicides include mixtures with chlorothalonil (Orondis-Opti), mandipropamid (Orondis-Ultra), azoxystrobin, mefenoxam (Orondis-Gold), famoxadone (Zorvec Encantia) or benthiavalicarb (Zorvec-Endavia). We have recently reported on synergistic efficacy of all mixtures, except that with benthiavalicarb, against late blight in tomato [9] and downy mildew in cucumber [4].

The present study reports on the efficacy of oxathiapiprolin+benthiavalicarb (Zorvec-Endavia [ZE]) in controlling foliar oomycete pathogens. Because both compounds are systemic, the systemic protective efficacy of ZE when applied to the root system by soil drench was also examined.

Bentiavalicarb (together with mandipropamide, dimethomorph, flumorph and iprovalicarb) belongs to the carboxylic acid amides (CAA) group of fungicides (FRAC code 40). Their mode of action involves inhibition of cell wall synthesis of oomycetes by blocking the activity of cellulose synthase Ces3A of the pathogen. They are effective against Phytophthora infestans [19], Plasmopara viticola [20, 21], Pseudoperonospora cubensis [22] and Bremia lactucae [23]. Resistance against CAAs occurs in field populations of P. viticola [21] and P. cubensis [24] but not in P. infestans or B. lactucae [25]. With P. infestans, we were able to artificially mutate sporangia for stable resistance to the phenylamide fungicide mefenoxam but failed to select mutants with stable resistance against CAAs [26], suggesting a low risk of resistance developing in this pathogen in field populations against CAAs.

Soil treatment with oxathiapiprolin was reported to be effective against soil borne oomycete pathogens, e.g., black shank in tobacco caused by Phytophthora nicotianae [12] and root rots in citrus caused by Phytophthora species [13]. In our recent papers, we reported that root treatment with oxathiapiprolin or oxathiapiprolin+mefenoxam were effective in controlling downy mildew in cucumber [4] and late blight in tomato [9]. The half-life time of oxathiapiprolin in soil is about a week [27, 28].

The objective of the present research was to examine the efficacy of root treatment with oxathiapiprolin, benthiavalicarb or their mixture oxathiapiprolin+benthiavalicarb (Zorvec Endavia) in controlling downy mildew in cucumber and basil and late blight in tomato in growth chambers and the field.

Materials and methods

Fungicides

Oxathiapiprolin (OXPT) 100OD (oil dispersion) was a gift from DuPont, France. Benthiavalicarb (BENT) 98% technical grade was a gift from Syngenta Crop Protection, Switzerland. The mixture of OXPT+BENT (Zorvec Endavia 100SC = ZE, 30g oxathiapiprolin+70g benthiavalicarb/Kg) was a gift from Agrochem Ltd (Petah Tikva, Israel). The fungicides (except BENT) were suspended in water and diluted to a series of 10-fold concentration suspensions from 0.001 to 1 mg ai per ml. BENT was dissolved in DMSO (dimethylsulfoxide, 100 mg/10 ml) and then suspended in water. For the dual mixtures, an indicated dose represents the combined doses of both ingredients.

Plants

Cucumber (cv Nadyojni, own production) and tomato (cv Roter Gnom, deterministic growth type, a gift from Syngenta, Switzerland, or cv 129, non- deterministic type, a gift from Hazera Seeds, Israel) were used. Plants were grown from seeds in the greenhouse, in either 250 ml pots filled with peat: perlite (10:1, v/v) soil, one plant per pot or in multi-cell trays (cell size 5x5 cm, Hishtil, Petah Tikva, Israel) filled with the same soil. Cucumber plants were used at the 1-leaf stage, unless stated otherwise. Tomato plants were used at the 3-leaf stage, unless stated otherwise. Basil plants (cv Perri, a gift from Volcani Center, Newe Yaar, Israel) were grown in multi-cell trays (cell size 2.5x2.5 cm, Hishtil, Petah Tikva, Israel). Plants that grew in multi-cell trays were transplanted to 250 ml pots or to the field as indicated below.

Root treatment

A single aliquot (1 ml) of OXPT, BENT or ZE was applied to the root (soil drench) of cucumber, tomato or basil plants. Tomato plants growing in 250 ml pots were treated at the 5, 8, 10 or 12-leaf stage. Cucumber plants growing in similar pots were treated at 1, 2, 3 or 6-leaf stage. Basil plants growing 250 ml pots were treated at the eight or 10-leaf stage. Plants growing in multi-cell trays were treated at the 1-leaf stage (cucumber), 2-leaf stage (basil) or 3-leaf stage (tomato) by pipetting 1 ml fungicide suspension of 10, 100 or 1000-ppm a.i. (0.01, 0.1 or 1 mg ai/plant) onto the soil surface around the stem base of each plant (Fig 1). In some experiments, 0.3, 0.7 or 1 ml of 10, 100 or 1000-ppm a.i. of OXPT, BENT or ZE, respectively, were applied to the root of each plant. At 1h and 5h after soil drench, 2 ml of water was added to the soil surface of each treated plant to facilitate the uptake of the fungicide(s) by the root system.

Fig 1. Application of fungicides to the root system of young cucumber, tomato and basil plants growing in multi-cell trays.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

One milliliter of a fungicide suspension is applied to the soil surface of each cell (cell size 5x5 cm for cucumber and tomato; 2.5x2.5 cm for basil) with the aid of a 12-ml or 50-ml Eppendorf dispenser. At 1h and 5h after root treatment, 2 ml of water were added to the soil surface of each treated plant to facilitate the uptake of the fungicide by the root system. A- Cucumber. B- Tomato. C- Basil.

Pathogens and inoculation

Isolate 260 of Pseudoperonospora cubensis (collected from cucumbers in Ahituv, Israel in May 2018) was used for inoculation of cucumber in growth chamber studies. This isolate is resistant to mefenoxam (MFX) and belongs to the A1 mating type. Isolate 164 of Phytophthora infestans (collected in March 2016 from potato at Nirim, Western Negev, Israel) was used for inoculation of tomato plants in growth chambers. This isolate is resistant to MFX and belongs to genotype 23_A1. Isolate Knafo 3 of Peronospora belbahrii was used to inoculate basil plants in growth chamber studies. This isolate was collected in 2013 at Ein Tamar, Southern Jordan valley, Israel; it is resistant to MFX.

Growth chamber experiments

Root-treated and control untreated plants growing in 250 ml pots were spray-inoculated with spore suspension (5x103 sporangia/ml) of their respective pathogen at various time intervals after soil drench (see below). Disease records were taken at 7dpi (days post inoculation), unless stated otherwise. In cucumber, the number of downy mildew lesions produced in each plant (or leaf area infected) was recorded [4]. In tomato, the proportion of blighted leaf area was visually estimated [9]. In basil, the proportion of infected leaf area was estimated as described before [29].

Field experiments

Experiments were conducted during 2019 at Bar-Ilan University Farm (32Ê 04' 2.40" N, 34Ê 50' 19.79" E) in 50x6 m net houses covered with white, 50 mesh, insect-proof plastic screens. Root-treated and untreated control cucumber and basil plants were transplanted to the field, at one or more days after treatment (DAT), where they were subjected to natural infection with P. cubensis or P. belbahrii. Disease records were taken upon appearance of the first symptoms of downy mildew and continued at intervals of 1–4 days for 3–4 weeks after transplantation.

Data analysis

Eight growth chamber experiments were conducted with 4–20 replicate plants per treatment. Effective doses (ED90 values, the dose of fungicide required to inhibit disease by 90% relative to control) were derived from log-probit regression curves using SPSS software. SF (synergy factor) was calculated using the Abbott or Wadley formulae as described before [30, 31]. T-test was performed using SPSS software to determine significant differences between means at α = 0.05.

Six field experiments were performed with cucumber and six field experiments with basil, with one or two replicate plots (0.6 x 1.2m each) per treatment and 8–10 plants per plot. Percent season-long protection for each fungicide was calculated as the ratio between the AUDPC (area under disease progress curve) of the treated plants and the AUDPC of the control fungicide-free plants [4, 29].

The synergistic interaction between oxathiapiprolin and benthiavalicarb was calculated according to Abbot or Wadley as described before [30, 31].

Results

Growth chamber experiments

Tomato late blight

Exp. 1. Six leaf tomato plants (cv Hazera 129) grown in 250 ml pots were soil-drenched with 0.5 or 1 mg a.i. of BENT, OXPT or ZE. Plants were inoculated a day later with P. infestans and assessed for disease development at 8 dpi (days post inoculation). MIC (minimal inhibitory concentration) values for BENT, OXPT and ZE were 1, > 1 and 0.5 mg a.i./plant, respectively (Fig 2A). ZE at 0.5 mg ai/plant provided a significantly reduced blight than the other fungicides at the same dose thus exhibiting a synergy factor (SF) of 1.2 (Abbott). The appearance of the plants at 8 dpi is shown in Fig 2B–2D.

Fig 2. Control of late blight by BENT, OXPT and ZE applied to the root system of tomato plants.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Plants (n = 4) were inoculated with sporangia of P. infestans at 8h after root treatment and scored for disease development at 7 dpi. A- Percentage blighted leaf area. Different letters on curves indicate on a significant difference at α = 0.05 (t-test). B- ED90 values derived from the values in A after log-probit transformation. ZE provides SF value of 22.2 (Wadley). C-E- the appearance of the inoculated plants at 7 dpi.

Exp. 2. ZE is a mixture composed of OXPT and BENT at a ratio of 3+7 (w/w). The following experiment was performed to learn if synergistic interaction occurs between the components of this mixture. The root system of 6-leaf tomato plants was treated with BENT of 0.007, 0.07, 0.7; OXPT of 0.003, 0.03, 0.3, or ZE of 0.01, 0.1, 1 mg a.i/ plant. Plants were inoculated with P. infestans at 2 days after treatment and scored for late blight symptoms at 8 dpi. The results are given in Fig 3. Increased doses of OXPT, BENT or ZE increased disease control (Fig 3A and 3B). ZE was significantly the most effective fungicide. Probit analysis revealed ED90 values of 0.222, 0.164 and 0.04 mg a.i. for BENT, OXPT and ZE, respectively. Based on these values the expected ED90 of ZE is 0.200, thus providing a high SF value (Wadley) of 5.

Fig 3. Control of late blight in tomato by root treatment with fungicides.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

A- Percentage of blighted leaf area at 8 dpi. Different letters on bars indicate on a significant difference between treatments at α = 0.05 (t-test). B- The appearance of the inoculated at 8 dpi. CK = Control untreated. 1, 2, 3 = the dose of a fungicide applied to the root system of each plant: BENT- 0.007, 0.07 0.7; OXPT- 0.003, 0.03, 0.3; ZE- 0.01, 0.1, 1 mg a.i. per plant. Plants were inoculated with sporangia of P. infestans at 2 days after treatment.

Exp. 3. Five leaf tomato plants grown in 250 ml pots (n = 40) were soil-drenched at 0.3, 0.7 or 1 mg a.i. of OXPT, BENT and ZE, respectively. They were inoculated with P. infestans at 3 DAT (days after transplanting) and scored at 7 dpi. The results are presented in Fig 4A–4E. The data show a significantly better control of late blight by ZE compared to BENT or OXPT (Fig 4A). Percent protection provided by OXPT, BENT and ZE was 87, 93 and 100%, respectively.

Fig 4. Control of late blight in tomato by root treatment with fungicides.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

Plants (n = 40) were inoculated with P. infestans at three DAT and photographed at 7dpi. A- Percentage blighted leaf area at 7dpi. Different letters on bars indicate on a significant difference between treatments at α = 0.05 (t-test). B- Control untreated inoculated plants. C- BENT 0.7 mg a.i. /plant. D- OXPT- 0.3 mg a.i./plant. E- ZE- 1 mg a.i./plant.

Exp. 4. The long-term protection against late blight by root treatment with ZE was examined as follows: 3-leaf tomato plants growing in multi-cell trays were treated by a soil drench with ZE of 0.5 or 1 mg a.i per plant. They were transferred to 250 ml pots a day later and were taken for inoculation (n = 10) at various time intervals after treatment. The results presented in Fig 5 show complete control of the disease up to 42 DAT. At 54 DAT, the lower dose of ZE was partially effective, while the higher dose was fully effective. At 81 DAT, when plants developed 20 leaves, ZE of 0.5 and 1 mg a.i. provided 80 and 85% protection, respectively (Fig 5A and 5B).

Fig 5. Long-term protection of tomato against late blight by ZE applied to the root system.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

A- Percentage blighted leaf area in plants taken for inoculation with P. infestans at various time intervals after soil drench with ZE. Different letters on bars indicate on a significant difference at α = 0.05 (n = 10, t-test). B- The appearance of the tomato plants taken for inoculation at 42 days after treatment. Photo taken at 7 dpi.

Cucumber downy mildew

Exp. 1. The root system of 3-leaf cucumber plants grown in 250 ml pots were treated with 1 mg a.i. of BENT, OXPT or ZE. Plants were inoculated with sporangia of P. cubensis at the 5-leaf stage and scored for disease symptoms at 14 dpi. The results presented in Fig 6A show that BENT provided partial, though significant, protection compared with untreated plants, whereas OXPT and ZE provided complete control of the disease.

Fig 6. Control of downy mildew in cucumber by fungicides applied to the root system.

Fig 6

Open in a new tab

A- The root system of 3-leaf cucumber plants growing in 250 ml pots were treated with 1 mg a.i. of BENT, OXPT or ZE. Plants (n = 8) were inoculated at the five leaf stage with sporangia of P. cubensis and scored for disease at 14 dpi. Different letters on bars indicate on a significant difference between treatments at α = 0.05 (t-test). B- Protection of cucumber plants (n = 12) against downy mildew by root treatment with BENT, OXPT and ZE. Different letters on bars indicate on a significant difference between treatments at α = 0.05 (t-test).

Exp. 2. One-leaf cucumber plants grown in multi-cell trays were soil drenched (n = 12) with 0.01, 0.1 or 1 mg a.i. of BENT, OXPT or ZE. Plants were inoculated with P. cubensis at 3 DAT. Disease recorded at 7 dpi are shown in Fig 6B. BENT, OXPT and ZE of 0.01 mg a.i./plant provided 39, 75 and 100% protection against the disease, respectively with SF (Abbott) of 1.18. The results showed a significantly higher efficacy of ZE compared to OXPT, and of OXPT compared to BENT.

Basil downy mildew

Exp. 1. Twelve-leaf basil plants grown in 250 ml pots were treated (n = 6) with 1 mg a.i. of OXPT or ZE, inoculated with sporangia of P. belbahrii two days later and evaluated for disease development at 12 dpi. Percent sporoulating leaf area in control plants was 68.3±7.5. OXPT provided 59% control of the disease, whereas ZE provided 100% control of the disease.

Exp. 2. Two-leaf basil plants grown in multi-cell trays were treated (n = 20) with ZE of 0.25, 0.5 or 1 mg a.i. per plant applied to the root system. They were transferred to 250 ml pots and inoculated at 7 DAT. Percent leaf area sporoulating at 11 dpi in control-inoculated plants was 59.8±18.4 percentage, whereas none of the treated plants showed any sporulation of P. belbahrii, regardless of the ZE dose applied.

Field experiments

Cucumber downy mildew

Exp. 1. The root system of 2-leaf cucumber plants growing in 250 ml pots was treated (n = 40) with ZE of 0.01, 0.1 or 1 mg a.i. per plant. Untreated plants served as control. Plants were transplanted to the field at 1DAT (14.2.2019) and scored for downy mildew development for 4 weeks. Disease progress with time is shown in Fig 7A and AUDPC in Fig 7B. Season-long protection provided by ZE of 0.01, 0.1 and 1 mg a.i./plant was 26, 53 and 100%, respectively (Fig 7C).

Fig 7.

Fig 7

Open in a new tab

A-C, Protection of cucumber plants in the field against downy mildew by root treatment with ZE. Two leaf plants growing in 250 ml pots were treated (n = 40) by ZE of 0.01, 0.1 or 1 mg a.i. per plant and transplanted to the field one day later. A- Disease progress with time. Different letters on curves indicate on a significant difference between treatments (α = 0.05) at the end of the experiment (t-test). B- Area under disease progress curve. C- Season-long protection. D-F, Control of cucumber downy mildew in the field in by root treatment with fungicides. One-leaf cucumber plants growing in 250 ml pots were treated by soil drench with 1 mg a.i. of BENT, OXPT or ZE and transplanted to the field at 13 DAT. D- Number of lesions developed per plant at various time intervals after inoculation. Different letters on curves indicate on a significant difference between treatments (α = 0.05) at the end of the experiment (t-test). E- Area under disease progress curve. F- Season-long protection.

Exp. 2. The root system of 1-leaf cucumber plants grown in 250 ml pots was treated with 1mg a.i. per plant of BENT, OXPT or ZE and transplanted to the field at 13 DAT (28.4.2019). Downy mildew lesions appeared in control plots at 40 DAT, as against 52 DAT in BENT-treated plots. No disease was seen in OXPT or ZE treated plots until 54 DAT (Fig 7D and 7E). Season-long protection provided by BENT, OXPT and ZE was 84, 100 and 100%, respectively (Fig 7F). Minor disease symptoms developed in ZE-treated plots at 56 DAT.

Exp. 3. The root system of 1-leaf cucumber plants growing in multi-cell trays were treated with 1 mg a.i. per plant of OXPT, BENT or ZE and transplanted to the field one day later (12.5.2019). First lesions of downy mildew were seen in control plots at 15 DAT. Disease progress with time is shown in Fig 8A and AUDPC in Fig 8B. By the end of the experiment, the plants had 12–14 leaves and carried a mean of 1350±212 lesions per plant. All three fungicides suppressed disease development in a significant manner (Fig 8A). BENT, OXPT and ZE provided 89, 98 and 99% long season protection, respectively (Fig 8C).

Fig 8.

Fig 8

Open in a new tab

A-C, Control of cucumber downy mildew in the field in by root treatment with BENT, OXPT or ZE. One-leaf plants growing in multi-cell trays were treated by a soil drench with 1 mg a.i. of a fungicide and transplanted to the field one day later. A- Disease progress with time. Different letters on curves indicate on a significant difference between treatments at the end of the experiment (α = 0.05). B- Area under disease progress curves. C- Season-long protection. D-F, Control of cucumber downy mildew in the field in by root treatment with BENT, OXPT or ZE. One-leaf plants growing in multi-cell trays were treated by a soil drench with 1 mg a.i. of a fungicide and transplanted to the field four days later. D- Disease progress with time. Different letters on curves indicate on a significant difference between treatments at the end of the experiment (α = 0.05). E- Area under disease progress curves. F- Season-long protection.

Exp. 4. The root system of 1-leaf cucumber plants grown in multi-cell trays were treated with 1mg a.i. per plant of OXPT, BENT or ZE and transplanted to the field four days later (11.6.2019). Disease progress with time is shown in Fig 8D, and AUDPC and season-long protection values are presented in Fig 8E and 8F, respectively. Final disease score in the control plots was significantly higher than in the treated plots (40, 5 and 10% in BENT, OXPT, and ZE treated plots, respectively) (Fig 8D). Final disease scores in OXPT and ZE treated plots were significantly lower than in BENT treated plots, but did not differ significantly among themselves. ZE was synergistically effective, with SF values (Abbott) of 1, 1, 1.03, 1.02, 1.08 and 1.06 at 10, 13, 15, 17, 20 and 22 DAT, respectively.

Exp. 5. Cucumber plants at their 1-leaf stage were soil-drench with 1ml suspension containing 0.01, 0.1 or 1 mg a.i. of OXPT, BENT or ZE (n = 10). Plant were transplanted to the field after one day (11.7.2019) and disease progress was followed for 24 days. The results are presented in Fig 9A–9C. First disease lesions appeared at 15 DAT with a mean of 100 lesions colonizing each control plant. Within 9 days, a mean of 800 lesions developed on each control plant, which bears 12 leaves (Fig 9A). All fungicides suppressed disease development in a significant manner regardless of the dose used (except OXPT of 0.01 mg ai/plant) (Fig 9A). AUDPC values are shown in Fig 9B. Season-long protection provided by OXPT, BENT and ZE ranged between 59–100, 83–97 and 81–95%, respectively (Fig 9C).

Fig 9.

Fig 9

Open in a new tab

A-C, Control of cucumber downy mildew in the field in by root treatment with BENT, OXPT or ZE. One-leaf cucumber plants (n = 10) growing in multi-cell trays were treated with BENT, OXPT or ZE of 0.01, 0.1 or 1 mg a.i. per plant. Plants were transplanted to the field one day later. Disease records were taken at 10–24 DAT. A- Disease records as taken at various time intervals after transplantation. Different letters on curves indicate on a significant difference between treatments at α = 0.05 (t-test). B- Area under disease progress curves. C- Season-long protection. D-F, Control of cucumber downy mildew in the field in by root treatment with BENT, OXPT or ZE. One-leaf cucumber plants (n = 10) growing in multi-cell trays were treated with BENT, OXPT or ZE of 0.01, 0.1 or 1 mg a.i. per plant. Plants were transplanted to the field three days later. Disease records were taken at 7–23 DAT. D- Disease records as taken at various time intervals after transplantation. Different letters on curves indicate on a significant difference between treatments at α = 0.05 (t-test). E- Area under disease progress curves. F- Season-long protection. H- The appearance of control untreated plants. Note the multiple number of downy mildew lesions. I- The appearance of plants treated with OXPT of 1 mg ai per plant. Note the absence of mildew lesions. Photos taken at 23 DAT.

Exp.6. Cucumber plants at their 1-leaf stage were soil-drench with 1ml suspension containing 0.01, 0.1 or 1 mg a.i. of OXPT, BENT or ZE (n = 15). Plant were transplanted to the field at 4 DAT (1.8.2019). Disease records were taken from 12 to 23 DAT. All fungicides suppressed disease development in a significant manner regardless of the dose used (Fig 9D). AUDPC and season-long protection data are shown in Fig 9E and 9F, respectively. The appearance of the plants at the end of the season is shown in Fig 9H and 9I. Based on the data in presented in Fig 9E a synergy factor (Wadley) of 8.03 for ZE was calculated.

Basil downy mildew

Exp. 1. The root system of 2-leaf basil plants grown in multi-cell trays were treated with OXPT of 0.003, 0.03 or 0.3, BENT of 0.007, 0.07 or 0.7, or ZE of 0.01, 0.1 or 1 mg a.i. per plant. Plants were transplanted to the field at 1 DAT (5.6.2019). Disease records as taken at 12, 15 and 20 DAT are shown in Fig 10A. OXPT and ZE were highly effective in protecting the plants from downy mildew, whereas BENT was partially effective (Fig 10A). AUDPC values (Fig 10B) and season-long protection values (Fig 10C) indicated on higher efficacy of ZE compared to OXPT or BENT. ED90 values at 20 DAT for OXPT, BENT and ZE were 0.123, >0.700 and 0.645 mg a.i. per plant, respectively, with ZE providing a synergy factor (Wadley) of 3.28.

Fig 10. Control of basil downy mildew in the field by root treatment with BENT, OXPT or ZE.

Fig 10

Open in a new tab

Two-leaf basil plants (n = 10) growing in multi-cell trays were treated with OXPT of 0.003, 0.03 or 0.3, BENT of 0.007, 0.07 or 0.7 and ZE of 0.01, 0.1 or 1 μg a.i. per plant. Plants were transplanted to the field one day later. A- Disease records as taken at various time intervals after transplantation. Different letters on curves indicate on a significant difference between treatments at α = 0.05 (t-test). B- Area under disease progress curves. C- Season-long protection.

Exp. 2. The root system of 2-leaf basil plants growing in multi-cell trays were treated with 0.25, 0.5 or 1 mg a.i. of OXPT, BENT or ZE and transplanted to the field at 10 DAT (16.5.2019). Disease progress curves, AUDPC and season-long protection values are shown in Fig 11A–11C. The disease in control untreated plants was seen at 17 DAT as against 26 DAT in root-treated plants (Fig 11A). Disease level in control plants reached 87.5% at 26 DAT. AUDPC and season-long protection are shown in Fig 11B and 11C, respectively. The most and least effective treatments were OXPT 1 mg a.i. per plant and BENT 0.25 mg a.i. per plant, respectively. The observed ED90 values of ZE at 26, 30 and 33 DAT were 0.215, 0.509 and 2.874 mg a.i./plants, respectively, whereas the expected ED90 values of ZE (Wadley) were 0.417, 1 and 3.333 mg a.i./plants, respectively (Fig 11D). Thus, the observed efficacy of ZE at 26, 30 and 33 DAT was x1.94, x1.96 and x1.15 higher (synergy factor) than expected (Fig 11E). The appearance of the plants at 28 DAT is shown in Fig 11F and 11G. Control plants (Fig 11F) were devastated of downy mildew whereas plants treated with 1 mg ai of OXPT were completely healthy (Fig 11G).

Fig 11. Control of basil downy mildew in the field by root treatment with BENT, OXPT or ZE.

Fig 11

Open in a new tab

Two-leaf basil plants growing in multi-cell trays were treated with BENT, OXPT or ZE of 0.25, 0.5 or 1 mg a.i. per plant. Plants were transplanted at one DAT to 250 ml pots and at10 DAT to the field. A- Disease records as taken at various time intervals after transplantation. Different letters on curves indicate on a significant difference between treatments at α = 0.05 (t-test). B- Area under disease progress curves. C- Season-long protection. D- Observed and expected ED 90m values of ZE. E- Synergy factor for ZE. F- The appearance of control untreated plants. Note intense yellowing due to heavy infection with downy mildew. G- The appearance of plants treated with OXPT of 1 mg a.i./plant. Note the intense green foliage free of infection with downy mildew. Photos taken at 28 DAT.

Exp. 3. The root system of 2-leaf basil plants growing in multi-cell trays were treated (n = 8) with 1 mg a.i. of OXPT, BENT or ZE. Untreated plants served as control. After one day, the plants were planted in 250 ml pots, and 10 days later (20.6.2019), they were transplanted to the field. Disease records were taken from 7 to 24 DAT. Disease progressed very fast, reaching 92.5 ±2.7% infected leaf area in control plants at 24 DAT. All fungicides suppressed the disease in a significant manner reaching 2.5±7.1, 2.5±4.6 and 5.6± 6.2% infected leaf area in plants treated with BENT, OXPT and ZE, respectively (Fig 12A).

Fig 12. Two experiments showing the control of basil downy mildew in the field by root treatment with 1 mg ai per plants of BENT, OXPT or ZE.

Fig 12

Open in a new tab

A- Six-leaf plants growing in 250 ml pots (n = 8) were treated with a fungicide and transplanted to the field at 10 days after treatment. Disease scores were taken at 7–24 DAT. Different letters on curves indicate on a significant difference between treatments at α = 0.05 (t-test). B- Two-leaf basil plants growing in multi-cell trays were treated (n = 20) with a fungicide and transplanted to the field at two days after treatment. Disease scores were taken at 10–32 DAT. Different letters on curves indicate on a significant difference between treatments at α = 0.05 (t-test).

Exp. 4. A similar experiment conduced a month later (19.7.2019) provided similar results (Fig 12B).

Exp. 5. The root system of 2-leaf basil plants growing in multi-cell trays were treated with 0.01, 0.1 or 1 mg a.i. of OXPT, BENT or ZE (n = 10) and transplanted to the field one day later (22.7.2019). The results are presented in Fig 13A–13C. The disease showed up in control plants at 9 DAT and progressed rapidly, reaching 85% infected leaf area at 23 DAT (Fig 13A). A negative association was recorded between the dose of a fungicide applied, disease intensity and season-long protection (Fig 13B and 13C). Root treatment at 1 mg ai of either fungicide provided 98% protection during the 23 days of the epidemics (Fig 13C).

Fig 13.

Fig 13

Open in a new tab

A-C, Control of basil downy mildew in the field by root treatment with BENT, OXPT or ZE. Two-leaf basil plants growing in multi-cell trays were treated (n = 10) with BENT, OXPT or ZE of 0.01, 0.1 or 1 mg a.i. per plant. Plants were transplanted to the field one day later. Disease scores were taken at 9–23 DAT. A- Disease records as taken at various time intervals after transplantation. Different letters on curves indicate on a significant difference between treatments at α = 0.05 (t-test). B- Area under disease progress curves. C- Season-long protection. D-F, Control of basil downy mildew in the field by root treatment with BENT, OXPT or ZE. Four-leaf plants growing in 250 ml pots (n = 10) were treated with a fungicide and transplanted to the field two days after treatment. Disease scores were taken at 8–20 DAT. D- Disease records as taken at various time intervals after transplantation. Different letters on curves indicate on a significant difference between treatments at α = 0.05 (t-test). E- Area under disease progress curves. F- Season-long protection. H and I, the appearance of the plants at 13 DAT. Note heavy sporulation of P. belbahrii in control plants but no sporulation in plants treated with ZE of 0.01 mg ai per plant.

Exp. 6. The root system of 4-leaf basil plants growing in 250 ml pots were treated with 0.01, 0.1 or 1 mg a.i. of OXPT, BENT or ZE (n = 10) and transplanted to the field one day later (29.7.2019). The results are presented in Fig 13D–13F. The disease appeared at 8 DAT attacking 85% of the leaves in control plants at the end of the epidemic. All fungicides at 0.1 and 1 mg per plants suppressed the disease in a significant manner. A clear positive association occurred between fungicide dose and disease inhibition. The higher the dose was the stronger was disease suppression (Fig 13D and 13E) and higher was the protection achieved (Fig 13F). The appearance of the plants at 13 DAT is shown in Fig 13H and 13I. Profuse sporulation of P. belbahrii was observed on lower leaf surfaces of control plants (Fig 13H), while no sporulation was seen at this stage in plants treated with ZE of 0.01 mg ai/plant (Fig 13I).

Discussion

In previous studies, we showed that oxathiapiprolin (OXPT) is effective against oomycete foliar pathogens when applied to the root system of cucumber and tomato plants [3, 4, 9]. OXPT exhibits systemic activity in spite of its low solubility in water (0.175 mg/L at 20°C) and high octanol/water partition coefficient (Log Pow 3.62–3.67 at pH 4–9). The extremely high intrinsic activity of this compound, with ED90 values of about 1ppb a.i. against spore germination [3], implies that even a minor quantity of OXPT taken up by the root system is sufficient to suppress disease development in the foliage.

According to FRAC (http://www.frac.info/), resistance risk of OXTP (FRAC code U15) is assumed medium to high and resistance management is required. To avoid the buildup of fungal resistance, the producers mix it with other fungicides, which have a different mode of action. We tested four OXPT mixtures (with chlorothalonil, azoxystrobin, mandipropamid or mefenoxam) in root treatments against downy mildew in cucumber and late blight in tomato. The most effective mixture was OXPT+mefenoxam [4, 9]. The enhanced efficacy of this mixture was attributed to the systemic nature of mefenoxam and its formulation.

Another systemic anti-oomycete fungicide is benthiavalicarb-isopropyl (BENT) (solubility in water 13.14 mg/L at 20°C and partition coefficient Log Pow 2.52 at 25°C, [32]). A mixture of oxathiapiprolin+benthiavalicarb-isopropyl (30g ai+70g ai per Kg) is now available as Zorvec Endavia100 OD (= ZE).

It is shown here that ZE and its components OXPT and BENT provide effective systemic protection against late blight in tomato and downy mildews in cucumber and basil following its application to the root system. In growth chamber experiments, a single root treatment with 1 mg a.i. of either fungicide provided complete control of late blight in tomato, downy mildew in cucumber and downy mildew in basil. Full protection in tomato persisted for as long as 42 days. In field experiments, a single application to the root system at 1 mg a.i. of either compounds provides a season-long protection against cucumber and basil downy mildews. Often, ZE performed better than OXPT and BENT combined, suggesting a synergistic interaction between the two components.

Authorizations exist for the use of OXPT as foliar treatments or as soil treatments at planting (band/in-furrow or in transplant water) or via drip irrigation in North America, Canada, a number of countries in the Pacific, Asia, Central and South Americas and are pending in Europe [27]. However, no information is available on the efficacy of root treatments with OXPT or its mixtures against foliar oomycete diseases of vegetables or herbs.

A major technical finding of the present study was that root treatment given to young seedlings growing in multi-cell trays in the nursery is an effective disease control measure. A single root treatment given to 2–3 leaf plants growing in multi-cell trays was effective upon transplanting against late blight in growth chamber until the 20-leaf stage in tomato, and in the field, against natural infection until the ~20-leaf stage in cucumber and ~ 100-leaf stage in basil.

The label of ZE recommends spray of 40-gram a.i. per hectare. With a density of 25,000 cucumber plants per hectare, this provides a dose of 1.6 mg a.i. per plant. When spray is repeated after about two weeks, this dose is doubled to 3.2 mg a.i. per plant. The new technique described here provides 3-4-week protection with only 1 mg a.i. of ZE per plant, thus reducing the dose applied by about 70%. Obviously, such decrease in the dose applied shall also reduce the risk of resistance buildup.

The three foliar oomycete pathogens studied here are all sensitive to OXPT and BENT. Both compounds are systemic. The mixture ZE provides simultaneous translocation of both fungicides to the leaf tissue of plants treated via the root system. ZE, therefore, provides not only excellent protection against disease but also mutual protection against developing resistance towards either OXPT or BENT.

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge Dr. M. Galperin for her assistance in statistical analyses of the data.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Pasteris, R.J., Hanagan, M.A.and Shapiro, R. World Patent Appl. WO 2,008,013,925. 2008.
  • 2.Pasteris R.J., Hanagan M.A., Bisaha J.J., Finkelstein B.L., Hoffman L.E., Gregory V., et al. , Discovery of oxathiapiprolin, a new oomycete fungicide that targets an oxysterol binding protein. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry, 2016. 24(3): p. 354–361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cohen Y., The novel oomycide oxathiapiprolin inhibits all stages in the asexual life cycle of Pseudoperonospora cubensis—causal agent of cucurbit downy mildew. PLOS One, 2015. 10(10). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cohen Y., Rubin A.E. and Galperin M. Control of cucumber downy mildew with novel fungicidal mixtures of Oxathiapiprolin. Phytoparasitica, 2018. 46(5): p. 689–704. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Miao J., Dong X., Chi Y., Lin D., Chen F., Du Y. et al. , Pseudoperonospora cubensis in China: Its sensitivity to and control by oxathiapiprolin. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology (Pesticide Biochem. Physiol.), 2018. 147: p. 96–101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cohen Y., Rubin A.E., Ben Naim Y. and Galperin M., Control of basil downy mildew with oxathiapiprolin-based fungicides. Phytoparasitica, 2018. 46(329). [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ji P. and Csinos A.S. Effect of oxathiapiprolin on asexual life stages of Phytophthora capsici and disease development on vegetables. Ann. App. Biol., 2015. 166(2): p. 229–235. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Olaya G., Linley R.,Edlebeck K., Kousik S. and Kuhn P. Oxathiapiprolin baseline sensitivity distribution of Phytophthora capsici isolates. Phytopathology, 2016. 106(12): p. 76.26524545 [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cohen Y., Rubin A.E. and Galperin M.Oxathiapiprolin-based fungicides provide enhanced control of tomato late blight induced by mefenoxam-insensitive Phytophthora infestans. PLOS ONE, 2018. 13(9): p. e0204523 10.1371/journal.pone.0204523 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Belisle R.J., Hao W., Mckee B., Manosalva P.M. and Adaskaveg J.E. Baseline sensitivities of new fungicides for Phytophthora cinnamomi causing avocado root rot in California. Phytopathology, 2017. 107(12): p. 182. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gray M.A., Hao W., Forster H. and Adaskaveg J.E., Baseline sensitivities of new fungicides and their toxicity to selected life stages of Phytophthora species from citrus in California. Plant Disease, 2018. 102(4): p. 734–742. 10.1094/PDIS-08-17-1155-RE [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bittner R.J. and Mila A.L. Efficacy and timing of application of oxathiapiprolin against black shank of flue-cured tobacco. Crop Protection, 2017. 93: p. 9–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hao W.,Gray M.A., Forster H. and Adaskaveg J.E., Evaluation of new Oomycota fungicides for management of Phytophthora root rot of citrus in California. Plant Disease 2019. 103: p. 619–628. 10.1094/PDIS-07-18-1152-RE [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Andreassi, I.I.J.L.,Gutteridge,S.,Pember,S.O.,Sweigard, J.A and Rehberg, E.F., Detection and screening method and materials useful in performance thereof. International Patent no. WO13/009971 2013, Geneva: World Intellectual Property.
  • 15.Weber-Boyvat M., Zhong W.B., Yan D.G. and Olkkonen V.M., Oxysterol-binding proteins: Functions in cell regulation beyond lipid metabolism. Biochemical Pharmacology, 2013. 86(1): p. 89–95. 10.1016/j.bcp.2013.02.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Miao J.Q., Cai M., Dong X., Liu L., Lin D., Zhang C. et al. , Resistance assessment for oxathiapiprolin in Phytophthora capsici and the detection of a point mutation (G769W) in PcORP1 that confers resistance. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2016. 7: p. 615–620. 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00615 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Elderfield J.A.D., Lopez-Ruiz F. J. van den Bosch F. and Cunniffe N. J.,S Using epidemiological principles to explain fungicide resistance management tactics: Why do mixtures outperform alternations? Phytopathology, 2018. 108(7): p. 803–817. 10.1094/PHYTO-08-17-0277-R [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gisi U. and Cohen Y. Resistance to phenylamide fungicides: A case study with Phytophthora infestans involving mating type and race structure. Ann. Rev. Phytopathology, 1996. 34: p. 549–572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cohen Y. and Gisi U., Differential activity of carboxylic acid amides fungicides against various developmental stages of Phytophthora infestans. Phytopathology, 2007. 97: p. 1274–1283. 10.1094/PHYTO-97-10-1274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Reuveni M., Activity of the new fungicide benthiavalicarb against Plasmopara viticola and its efficacy in controlling downy mildew in grapevines. Eur. J. Plant Pathol., 2003. 109(3): p. 243–251. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gisi U., Waldner M.,Kraus N., Dubuis P.H. and Sierotzki H., Inheritance of resistance to carboxylic acid amide (CAA) fungicides in Plasmopara viticola. Plant Pathol., 2007. 56: p. 199–208. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cohen Y., Baider A. and Cohen B.H., Dimethomorph activity against oomycete fungal plant pathogens. Phytopathology, 1995. 85(12): p. 1500–1506. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cohen Y., Rubin A.and Gotlieb D. Activity of carboxylic acid amide (CAA) fungicides against Bremia lactucae. Eur. J. Pl. Pathol., 2008. 122(1): p. 169–183. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Blum M., Waldner M., Olaya G. Cohen Y., Gisi U. and Sierotzki H., Resistance mechanism to carboxylic acid amid (CAA) fungicides in the cucurbit downy mildew pathogen Pseudoperonospora cubensis. Pest Manag. Sci., 2011. 67: p. 1211–1214. 10.1002/ps.2238 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cohen Y., Rubin E., Hadad T., Gotlieb D., Sierotzki H. and Gisi U, Sensitivity of Phytophthora infestans to mandipropamid and the effect ofenforced selection pressure in the field. Plant Pathol., 2007. 56: p. 836–842. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rubin A., Gotlieb D., Gisi U. and Cohen Y, Mutagenesis of Phytophthora infestans for resistance against carboxylic acid amide and phenylamide fungicides. Plant Dis., 2008. 92(5): p. 675–683. 10.1094/PDIS-92-5-0675 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lunn D., Oxathiapiprolin (291). Ministry for Primary Industries, Editor. 2016: Wellington, New Zealand. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yu P., Jia C., Zaho E., Chen L., He H., Jing J., et al. , Determination of oxathiapiprolin concentration and dissipation in grapes and soil by ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J. Sci. Food Agric., 2017. 97: p. 3294–3299. 10.1002/jsfa.8178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cohen Y., Ben-Naim Y., Falach L. and Rubin A.E, Epidemiology of basil downy mildew. Phytopathology, 2017. 107(10): p. 1149–1160. 10.1094/PHYTO-01-17-0017-FI [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kosman E. and Cohen Y., Procedures for calculating and differentiating synergism and antagonism in action of fungicide mixtures. Phytopathology, 1996. 86(11): p. 1263–1272. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Levy Y., Benderly M., Cohen Y., Gisi U. and Bassand D., The joint action of fungicides in mixtures: comparison of two methods for synergy calculation. EPPO Bull., 1986. 16: p. 651–657. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sakai J., Miura I., Shibata M., Yonekura N., Hiyoshi H., Takagaki M., et al. Development of a new fungicide, benthiavalicarb-isoprpyl. Journal of Pesticide Science, 2010. 35: p. 488–489. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Binod Bihari Sahu

3 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-24369

Root treatment with oxathiapiprolin, benthiavalivarb or their mixture provides prolonged systemic protection against oomycete foliar pathogens

PLOS ONE

Dear Prof. Cohen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 17 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Binod Bihari Sahu, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. We noticed you still have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10658-010-9698-6

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please address to the comments and rectify before re-submission.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: While the scientific method performed in the paper is sound, I believe significant editing for clarity/cohesiveness needs to be done before the paper is accepted.

There are many small paragraphs that I believe could be put together to form a more coherent narrative.

When referring to a disease (i.e. downy mildew of basil) please also put the pathogens scientific name in parenthesis after the disease. This way, plant pathologists working with related, but not identical, organisms will know what organism the author refers to.

Do not use "I" and "we", keep the writing the past tense and third person when possible. i.e. instead of "In our recent papers, we..." use "Prior research has shown..." or "the author" instead of "I".

Benthiavalicarb is misspelled in the title.

I believe the authors grouped experiments by organism to try and clarify what they did, however, I found this to be difficult to follow. I think grouping organisms by experiment would shorten the paper and provide additional clarity. Many of the experiments were identical, but performed on different plant pathogens/host combinations. I see no benefit in reiterating the method used, if it was identical between basil, tomato and their associated pathogens, for example.

When referring to sporangia density used, please use scientific number format. i.e. 5000 sporangia should be 5x10^3. Some experiments did not have a sporangial concentration stated, that too should be fixed.

I think the authors using mefenoxam resistant isolates was a great choice. It adds to the importance of their work using alternate chemistries.

Overall, I want to commend the author for the extensive work they did. It was obviously a large and robust project and would make a great addition to expand the literature on Oxathiapiprolin/Benthiavalicarb sensitivity in oomycetes, once the grammatical and clarity/cohesiveness issues are addressed.

i would be happy to review this paper again, once these issues are addressed.

Reviewer #2: Please create for experiments conducted in growth chamber and fields

Expt# Crop diseases Fungicides tested Application rate of fungicides

Corrections in the attached file

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: review comments.docx

Click here for additional data file. (5.3MB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Binod Bihari Sahu

23 Dec 2019

Root treatment with oxathiapiprolin, benthiavalivarb or their mixture provides prolonged systemic protection against oomycete foliar pathogens

PONE-D-19-24369R1

Dear Dr. Cohen,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Binod Bihari Sahu, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Binod Bihari Sahu

31 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-24369R1

Root treatment with oxathiapiprolin, benthiavalicarb or their mixture provides prolonged systemic protection against oomycete foliar pathogens

Dear Dr. Cohen:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Binod Bihari Sahu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: review comments.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (5.3MB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Comments ZE paper.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (14.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES