# Microbial diversity in soils suppressive to Fusarium diseases

Irena Todorović, Yvan Moënne-Loccoz, Vera Raic, Jelena Jovičić-Petrović,
Daniel Muller

► To cite this version:

Irena Todorović, Yvan Moënne-Loccoz, Vera Raic, Jelena Jovičić-Petrović, Daniel Muller. Microbial diversity in soils suppressive to Fusarium diseases. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2023, 14, pp.1228749. 10.3389/fpls.2023.1228749. hal-04320379

HAL Id: hal-04320379

https://hal.science/hal-04320379v1

Submitted on 4 Dec 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

OPEN ACCESS

EDITED BY

Inmaculada Larena,
Instituto Nacional de Investigación y
Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria
(INIA-CSIC), Spain

REVIEWED BY

Belen Guijarro,
Instituto Nacional de Investigación y
Tecnología Agroalimentaria (INIA), Spain
Carmen Gómez-Lama Cabanás,
Spanish National Research Council (CSIC),
Spain

*CORRESPONDENCE

Daniel Muller

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

daniel.muller@univ-lyon1.fr

RECEIVED 25 May 2023

ACCEPTED 10 November 2023

PUBLISHED 04 December 2023

CITATION

Todorović I, Moënne-Loccoz Y, Raičević V, Jovičić-Petrović J and Muller D (2023) Microbial diversity in soils suppressive to *Fusarium* diseases. *Front. Plant Sci.* 14:1228749.
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1228749

COPYRIGHT

© 2023 Todorović, Moënne-Loccoz, Raičević, Jovičić-Petrović and Muller. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Microbial diversity in soils suppressive to *Fusarium* diseases

Irena Todorović ID¹,², Yvan Moënne-Loccoz ID¹,
Vera Raičević ID², Jelena Jovičić-Petrović ID²
and Daniel Muller ID¹*

¹Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR5557 Ecologie Microbienne, Villeurbanne, France, ²University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture, Belgrade, Serbia

*Fusarium* species are cosmopolitan soil phytopathogens from the division *Ascomycota*, which produce mycotoxins and cause significant economic losses of crop plants. However, soils suppressive to *Fusarium* diseases are known to occur, and recent knowledge on microbial diversity in these soils has shed new lights on phytoprotection effects. In this review, we synthesize current knowledge on soils suppressive to *Fusarium* diseases and the role of their rhizosphere microbiota in phytoprotection. This is an important issue, as disease does not develop significantly in suppressive soils even though pathogenic *Fusarium* and susceptible host plant are present, and weather conditions are suitable for disease. Soils suppressive to *Fusarium* diseases are documented in different regions of the world. They contain biocontrol microorganisms, which act by inducing plants' resistance to the pathogen, competing with or inhibiting the pathogen, or parasitizing the pathogen. In particular, some of the *Bacillus*, *Pseudomonas*, *Paenibacillus* and *Streptomyces* species are involved in plant protection from *Fusarium* diseases. Besides specific bacterial populations involved in disease suppression, next-generation sequencing and ecological networks have largely contributed to the understanding of microbial communities in soils suppressive or not to *Fusarium* diseases, revealing different microbial community patterns and differences for a notable number of taxa, according to the *Fusarium* pathosystem, the host plant and the origin of the soil. Agricultural practices can significantly influence soil suppressiveness to *Fusarium* diseases by influencing soil microbiota ecology. Research on microbial modes of action and diversity in suppressive soils should help guide the development of effective farming practices for *Fusarium* disease management in sustainable agriculture.

KEYWORDS

deoxynivalenol, nivalenol, zearalenone, *Fusarium* head blight, induced systemic resistance, lipopolysaccharides

**Abbreviations:** DON, Deoxynivalenol; NIV, Nivalenol; ZEA, Zearalenone; FHB, Fusarium Head Blight; ISR, Induced Systemic Resistance; LPS, Lipopolysaccharides; FOL, *F. oxysporum* f. sp. *lycopersici*; PR, Pathogenesis-Related; VOC, Volatile Organic Compound; BEA, beauvericin; ENN, enniatins.
# 1 Introduction

The fungal genus *Fusarium* encompasses several plant-pathogenic species, which are among the most destructive phytopathogens world-wide, causing diseases on many agricultural crops (Burgess and Bryden, 2012). They are ubiquitous in parts of the world where cereals and other crops are grown and they produce a wide variety of mycotoxins, which may be present in feed and food products (Babadoost, 2018; Moretti et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2019). Consumption of products that are contaminated with mycotoxins may cause acute or chronic effects in both animals and humans, and could result in immune-suppressive or carcinogenic effects (Jard et al., 2011). By producing mycotoxins and by inducing necrosis and wilting in plants, *Fusarium* fungi are causing huge economic losses of cereal crops throughout the world (Khan et al., 2017). Their broad distribution has been attributed to their ability to develop on different substrates and plant species, and to produce spores that enable efficient propagation (Desjardins, 2006; Arie, 2019). They are typical soil-borne microorganisms, routinely found in plant-associated fungal communities (Reyes Gaige et al., 2020).

Efficient management of plant diseases caused by *Fusarium* is important to limit crop losses and to reduce mycotoxin production in alimentary products (Babadoost, 2018). Because mycotoxin synthesis can occur not only after harvesting but also before, one of the best ways to reduce its presence in food and feed products is to prevent its formation in the crop (Jard et al., 2011). Over the years, different methods, such as the use of resistant cultivars and chemical fungicides, have been undertaken in order to control or prevent crop diseases (Willoquett et al., 2021). In spite of that, *Fusarium* continues to cause huge crop losses, up to 70% in South America, 54% in the United States and 50% in Europe in the case of Fusarium head blight (FHB) disease of wheat (Scott et al., 2021).

Alternative control methods, based on plant-protection effects of beneficial microorganisms, have also been investigated (Janvier et al., 2007; Nguyen et al., 2018). Farming practices greatly influence these effects by shaping the rhizosphere microbial community (Campos et al., 2016), stimulating the activity of beneficial rhizosphere microorganisms and restricting the activity of soil-borne *Fusarium* pathogens (Janvier et al., 2007). Indeed, crop rotation, tillage and addition of organic amendments may provide some control of soil-borne pathogens, through different microbial direct and indirect mechanisms (Janvier et al., 2007). The effect of plant-protecting soil microbiota on plant health is of particular interest in the case of disease-suppressive soils, which were defined by Baker and Cook (1974) as "soils in which the pathogen does not establish or persist, establishes but causes little or no damage, or establishes and causes disease for a while but thereafter the disease is less important, although the pathogen may persist in the soil". Suppressive soils represent a reservoir of beneficial microorganisms, which may confer effective plant protection against various soil-borne diseases (Gómez Expósito et al., 2017). This biocontrol potential of suppressive soils is of great importance when considering phytopathogens like *Fusarium* spp., which are causing increasing damage to crops in the on-going climate change context (Babadoost, 2018). Insight into the time and space

microbial dynamics of soils suppressive to *Fusarium* diseases, together with the understanding of microbial modes of action and agricultural practices applied, is needed in order to develop safe, effective, and stable tools for disease management (Gómez Expósito et al., 2017).

By selecting their rhizosphere microbiome (Tkacz et al., 2015; Gruet et al., 2023), plants may contribute themselves to suppressiveness (Almario et al., 2014; Gómez Expósito et al., 2017). Soil represents the richest known reservoir of microbial biodiversity (Curtis et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2016) and displays several compartments, i.e. the bulk soil containing microorganisms that are not affected by the roots, the rhizosphere where soil microorganisms are under the influence of roots (and roots exudates), the rhizoplane with root-adhering microorganisms, and the endosphere for root tissues colonized by microorganisms (Sánchez-Cañizares et al., 2017). The rhizosphere and rhizoplane harbor an abundant community of bacteria, archaea, oomycetes and fungi, whose individual members can have beneficial, deleterious or neutral effects on the plant. The collective genome of this microbial community is larger than that of the plant itself, and is often referred to as the plant's second genome (Berendsen et al., 2012). Thus, this alliance of the plant and its associated microorganisms represents a holobiont, which has interdependent, fine-tuned and complex functioning (Berendsen et al., 2012; Vandenkoornhuyse et al., 2015; Sánchez-Cañizares et al., 2017). In this system, the plant is a key player, as nearly 40% of all photosynthates are released directly by roots into the rhizosphere, serving as a fuel for microbial communities, thus recruiting and shaping this microbiome (Berendsen et al., 2012; Tkacz and Poole, 2015). These photosynthates are conditioned by the plant genotype, developmental stage, metabolism, immune system and its ability to exudate (Sánchez-Cañizares et al., 2017). In this context, suppressiveness will depend on microbiome diversity and functioning.

This review deals with recent knowledge on soils suppressive to *Fusarium* diseases, which sheds new lights on molecular and ecological mechanisms underpinning phytoprotection effects and highlights the importance of microbial diversity in the functioning of these suppressive soils. To this end, we summarize current knowledge on *Fusarium* taxonomy and ecology, and their mechanisms of plant infection. In addition, we review our understanding of biocontrol agents against *Fusarium* and their modes of action. Finally, we focus on soils suppressive to *Fusarium* diseases and the importance of farming and environmental factors modulating suppressiveness, with an emphasis on the particularities of the different *Fusarium* pathosystems.

# 2 *Fusarium* phytopathogens and plant diseases

## 2.1 *Fusarium* ecology

*Fusarium* species occur in soils, but they can also grow in and on living and dead plants (Laraba et al., 2021) and animals (Xia et al., 2019), with the ability to live as parasites or saprophytes
(Smith, 2007; Summerell, 2019). Some can also be found in caves (Bastian et al., 2010) or in man-made water systems (Sautour et al., 2012). *Fusarium* species are mostly known as phytopathogens, but some of them have been evidenced as contaminants in industrial processes, indoor environments, or pharmaceutical and food products (Abdel-Azeem et al., 2019), whereas others behave as opportunistic human/animal pathogens (Al-Hatmi et al., 2019; da Silva Santos et al., 2020) or are fungicolous (Torbati et al., 2021).

Focusing on plant-interacting *Fusarium* species, their saprophytic potential enables them to survive the winter in the crop debris, in the form of mycelium or spores that serve as plant-infecting propagules in the spring (Figure 1A) (Leslie and Summerell, 2006). *Fusarium* species vary in reproduction strategies, and they produce sexual spores as well as three types of asexual spores, i.e. (i) microconidia, which are typically produced under all environmental conditions, (ii) macroconidia, which are often found on the surface of diseased plants, and (iii) chlamydospores (survival structures), which are thick walled and produced from macroconidia or older mycelium (Ajmal et al., 2023). More than 80% of *Fusarium* species propagate using asexual spores, but not all of them produce all three types of spores, while sexual reproduction can involve self-fertility or out-crossing (Rana et al., 2017). Additionally, some species produce sclerotia, which promote survival in soil (Leslie and Summerell, 2006).

*Fusarium* shows climatic preferences, as *F. oxysporum*, *F. solani*, *F. verticillioides* (formerly *F. moniliforme*), *F. tricinctum*, *F. fujikuroi*, *F. pseudograminearum* and *F. graminearum* are found worldwide, *F. culmorum* and *F. avenaceum* in temperate regions, whereas some species occur in tropical or cool regions (Backhouse and Burgess, 2002; Babadoost, 2018; Senatore et al., 2021). The growth of each *Fusarium* species is largely determined by abiotic environmental conditions, notably temperature and humidity (Table S1) (Xu, 2003; Crous et al., 2021). However, other environmental factors, such as soil characteristics, cropping

systems, agricultural practices and other human activities may influence the diversity of *Fusarium* in soils (Abdel-Azeem et al., 2019; Pfordt et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Du et al., 2022).

## 2.2 Taxonomy of *Fusarium* spp.

The *Fusarium* genus exhibits high level of variability in terms of morphological, physiological and ecological properties, which represents a difficulty in establishing a consistent taxonomy of these species (Burgess et al., 1996). An additional difficulty for classification is the existence of both asexual (anamorph) and sexual (teleomorph) phases in their life cycle (Summerell, 2019). Based on the most widely used classification, the anamorph state of the genus *Fusarium* is classified in the family *Nectriaceae*, order *Hypocreales* and division *Ascomycota* (Crous et al., 2021). Several teleomorphs have been related to *Fusarium* species, but not all *Fusarium* species have a known sexual state in their life cycle (Munkvold, 2017). Most of these teleomorphs are in the genus *Gibberella*, including the economically important pathogens, such as *G. zeae* (anamorph *F. verticillioides*) and *G. moniliformis* (anamorph *F. verticillioides*) (Keszthelyi et al., 2007). Other *Fusarium* teleomorphs are members of the genera *Albonectria*, *Neocosmospora* or *Haematonectria*. Teleomorphs are usually not observed in the field, but rather under lab conditions. The dual anamorph-teleomorph nomenclature for fungi has now been abolished, and the name *Fusarium* has been retained for these fungi (Geiser et al., 2013).

The genus *Fusarium* is currently composed of 23 species complexes and at least 69 well-individualized species. *Fusarium* species complexes are groups of closely-related species with the same morphology, which are strongly supported from a phylogenetic perspective (O'Donnell et al., 2013; O'Donnell et al., 2015; Summerell, 2019; Xia et al., 2019; Laraba et al., 2021; Senatore et al., 2021; Yilmaz et al., 2021), as shown in Figure 2. Within a

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1</figcaption></figure>

Interactions of *Fusarium* species with plant and other microbiota members. (A) Life cycle of *Fusarium* species and their mechanism of plant infection by producing three types of spores: ascospores, conidia and chlamydospores. *Fg*, *F* graminearum; *Fo*, *F* oxysporum; *Fs*, *F* solani; *Fc*, *F* culmorum; *Fv*, *F* verticillioides. (B) Dynamic interactions between beneficial soil microorganisms, plant and phytopathogenic *Fusarium* species.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2</figcaption></figure>

Phylogenetic relationship between pathogenic *Fusarium* species and 15 different species complexes. The distance-method tree (1000 bootstrap replicates) was inferred from the *rpb1* (RNA Polymerase 1) data set, using the SeaView multiplatform (Gouy et al., 2010). The tree was visualized using iTol (Letunic and Bork, 2021). *Sphaerostilbella aureonitens* NRRL 13992 was used as an outgroup. Species complexes delimitation is based on the phylogeny published in Summerell (2019).

given *Fusarium* species, certain strains may be pathogenic while others are not (Fuchs et al., 1997; De Lamo and Takken, 2020; Constantin et al., 2021). However, most phytopathogenic species belong to the *F. fujikuroi*, *F. sambucinum*, *F. oxysporum*, *F. tricinctum* or *F. solani* species complexes (O'Donnell et al., 2013; Senatore et al., 2021). Furthermore, *Fusarium* species capable of infecting a wide range of plants are classified into different *formae speciales*, based on the host plant they can infect (Edel-Hermann and Lecomte, 2019; Coleman, 2016). Currently, there are 106 well-described *F. oxysporum* *formae speciales* (Edel-Hermann and Lecomte, 2019) and 12 well-described *F. solani* *formae speciales* (Šišić et al., 2018).

Over the past 100 years, the taxonomy of *Fusarium* has undergone many changes, but most classification procedures have been based on the size and shape of the macroconidia, the presence or absence of microconidia and chlamydospores, and the structure of the conidiophores (Ristić, 2012). Identification of *Fusarium* species based on morphological characteristics also included observations of colony pigmentation and type of aerial mycelium (Crous et al., 2021). The standard method now used to identify *Fusarium* isolates to a species level is to sequence one (or more) of the following genes: translocation elongation factor-1α (*tef-1α*), RNA polymerase 1 and 2 (*rpb1* and *rbp2*), β-tubulin (*tub*), histone (*his*), ATP citrate lyase (*acl1*) or calmodulin (*CaM*) (Herron et al., 2015; Summerell, 2019; Crous et al., 2021; Laraba et al., 2021; Yilmaz et al., 2021). The *tef-1α*

gene is a first-choice marker as it has good resolution power for the majority of *Fusarium* species, while sequencing the gene *rbp2* allows differentiation of close species. The other genetic markers mentioned have variable resolution power and are often used together with *tef-1α* or *rbp2* (Crous et al., 2021). The internal transcribed spacer regions of the ribosomal gene (*ITS*), which are common barcodes to identify fungi, are not recommended for *Fusarium* identification, as they are not sufficiently informative for a significant number of *Fusarium* species (Summerell, 2019).

## 2.3 Mechanisms of *Fusarium* infection, symptoms and etiology

Before infecting the host plant tissues, soil-borne pathogens may grow in the rhizosphere or on the host as saprophytes, managing to escape the rhizosphere battlefield (Raaijmakers et al., 2009). The outcome is directly influenced by host and microbial defense mechanisms, at the level of the holobiont (Berendsen et al., 2012; Vandenkoornhuyse et al., 2015). During their life cycle, plants are exposed to numerous phytopathogens, and they have developed different adaptive strategies. Upon pathogen attack, both composition and quantity of root metabolites may change (Rolfe et al., 2019), which can be useful for direct defense against the pathogens (Rizaludin et al., 2021), for signaling the impending
threat to the neighboring plants (Pélissier et al., 2021), or for
recruiting beneficial microorganisms with biocontrol capabilities.
The latter phenomenon is referred to as the ‘a cry for help’ strategy
(Rizaludin et al., 2021).

If the pathogen manages to escape from the rhizosphere battlefield,
the infection cycle can proceed. Plant infection by *Fusarium* occurs in a
few successive stages (Figure 1A), which differs according to *Fusarium*
species. Seeds infected with *Fusarium* in the previous season can also
serve as disease initiators (Jiménez-Díaz et al., 2015). *F. graminearum*
grows saprophytically on crop debris, which is the overwintering
reservoir of the pathogen (Brown et al., 2010). The fungus may
infect roots and cause damage to the collar (Ares et al., 2004).
During the crop anthesis and under warm and humid weather
conditions, asexual conidia, sexual ascospores or chlamydospores are
dispersed by rain or wind and reach the outer anthers and outer glumes
of the plant. After spore germination, hyphae penetrate the host plant
through the cracked anthers, followed by inter- and intracellular
mycelial growth, resulting in damage to host tissues and especially
head blight disease (Brown et al., 2010). Unlike *F. graminearum*, *F.
culmorum* produces only asexual conidia and chlamydospores, which
are also dispersed by rain and wind, reaching plant heads and infecting
the ears during the anthesis. Subsequently, conidia germinate on the
lemma and palea, followed by inter- and intracellular mycelial growth
(Wagacha and Muthomi, 2007). In contrast, the infection cycle of *F.
oxysporum* begins when mycelia, germinating asexual conidia or
chlamyospores enter the healthy plant through the root tip, lateral
roots or root wounds. The fungus progresses intracellularly, entering
the xylem sap flow and being transported to the aerial parts of the plant
where it forms infection structures. The infection structures that form
close the vascular vessels, disrupt nutrient translocation, leading to
stomatal closure, leaf wilting and plant death (Banerjee and Mittra,
2018; Redkar et al., 2022a; Redkar et al., 2022b). In the case of *F.
verticillioides*, infection starts when mycelia, asexual conidia or sexual
ascospores are carried inside the seed or on the seed surface and later
develop inside the growing plant, moving from the roots up to the
maize kernels (Oren et al., 2003; Gai et al., 2018). Sometimes, the
fungus colonizes and grows along the veins of the plant root, while
sometimes it manages to penetrate the plant cells and form internal
hyphae, therefore causing damage (Lei et al., 2011; Blacutt et al., 2018).
Finally, for *F. solani*, the attachment of mycelia, asexual conidia, sexual
ascospores or chlamydospores to the susceptible host is the first step in
disease development, after which the fungus enters the host through
stomata or the epidermis. Following penetration, *F. solani* is able to
spread through the xylem, ultimately causing wilting of the host plant
(Coleman, 2016).

It is reported that mycotoxins play a key role in pathogenesis, and
that the aggressiveness of *Fusarium* depends on its toxin-producing
capacity (Mesterházy, 2002; Xia et al., 2019; Laraba et al., 2021;
Senatore et al., 2021; Yilmaz et al., 2021). Several mycotoxins are
produced by *Fusarium* species, including the trichothecenes
deoxynivalenol (DON) and nivalenol (NIV), zearalenone (ZEA),
the cyclodepsipeptides beauvericin (BEA) and enniatins (ENN),
and fusaric acid (Wagacha and Muthomi, 2007; Munkvold et al.,
2021). The biosynthesis of these toxins is encoded by the *tri*, *pks*, *bea*
and *fus* genes, respectively (Dhanti et al., 2017). However, not every
species has the ability of producing all of the abovementioned

mycotoxins. For example, DON and NIV are commonly produced
by *F. graminearum* and *F. culmorum*, while ZEA and fusaric acid are
often produced by some members of the *F. sambucinum* species
complex (i.e. *F. graminearum*, *F. culmorum*), the *F. fujikuroi* complex
(*F. verticillioides*) and the *F. incarnatum-equiseti* complex (*Nešić
et al., 2014; Munkvold et al., 2021*), and BEA and ENN are produced
by certain *F. oxysporum* and members of the *F. tricinctum* species
complex (Munkvold et al., 2021; Senatore et al., 2021). DON
production by *F. graminearum* is reported to be essential for
disease development in wheat spikes (Cuzick et al., 2008). Spikes
treated with DON or NIV led to yield losses even in the absence of the
pathogen, indicating a strong negative effect of these trichothecenes
on wheat growth (Ittu et al., 1995). In addition to DON, fusaric acid is
also a virulence factor involved in programmed cell death (López-
Díaz et al., 2018). It was shown that alkaline pH and low nitrogen and
iron availabilities lead to increased fusaric acid production in *F.
oxysporum* (Palmieri et al., 2023). Besides mycotoxins, there are other
metabolites produced by *Fusarium* species that play a role in disease
pathogenesis. Deletion of the *F. graminearum* gene cluster
responsible for the synthesis of fusaoctaxin A abolished the fungal
ability to colonize wheat coleoptiles (Jia et al., 2019). Extracellular
lipases secreted by *F. graminearum* affected the plant's defense
responses by inhibiting callose synthase activity (Blümke et al., 2014).

Diseases caused by *Fusarium* species include blights, wilts and
rots of various crops in natural environments and in agroecosystems
(Nelson et al., 1994; Ma et al., 2013). Fusarium Head Blight (FHB) or
'scab' is a disease caused primarily by the *F. graminearum* species
complex. It is the fourth-ranked fungal phytopathogen in term of
economic importance (Dean et al., 2012; Legrand et al., 2017),
causing yield losses of 20% to 70% (Bai and Shaner, 1994). *F. graminearum* is responsible for kernel damage and mycotoxin
production (Ma et al., 2013) in cereals like wheat, barley, rice and
oats (Goswami and Kistler, 2004). Typical symptoms of FHB begin
soon after flowering, as diseased spikelets gradually bleach, leading to
bleaching of the entire head. After this stage, black spherical
structures called perithecia may appear on the surface of diseased
spikelets. Later, as the disease becomes more severe, the fungus begins
to attack the kernels inside the head, causing them to wrinkle and
shrink (Schmale and Bergstrom, 2003). FHB can also be caused by *F. culmorum*, which is dominant in cooler regions of Europe (Wagacha
and Muthomi, 2007). Vascular wilt is responsible for severe losses in
crops such as melon, tomato, cotton, bean and banana. It is caused by
*Fusarium oxysporum*, the fifth most economically important fungal
phytopathogen (Michielse and Rep, 2009; Dean et al., 2012; Husaini
et al., 2018). Symptoms of vascular wilt are first observed on the older
leaves, as they begin to droop, followed by defoliation and yellowing
of the younger leaves and eventually, plant death (Britannica, 2017;
Redkar et al., 2022a). Root, stem and foot rots of various non-grain
host plants are often caused by *Fusarium solani*, and the disease
symptoms depend on the host plant and the particular *forma specialis*
(Voigt, 2002; Coleman, 2016). However, typical symptoms of root,
stem and foot rots include brown lesions on the affected plant organs.
*Fusarium verticillioides* causes ear and stalk rot in hosts such as
maize, sorghum and rice (Murillo-Williams and Munkvold, 2008;
Dastjerdi and Karlovsky, 2015), whereas *F. graminearum* is
responsible for causing *Fusarium* ear and stalk rot in maize
(Goswami and Kistler, 2004). *Fusarium* ear rot is characterized by discoloration of single or multiple kernels in different areas of the ear, while early signs of stalk rot include lodging and discoloration of the stem.

## 3 Biocontrol agents against *Fusarium* and their modes of action

Plant-beneficial microorganisms present in the rhizosphere may protect plants from *Fusarium* pathogens, through different modes of action including (i) induction of resistance in the plant, (ii) competition with the pathogens for space and nutrients, (iii) amensalism based on the production of different metabolites or lytic enzymes, or (iv) parasitism (Figure 1B) (Nguvo and Gao, 2019; Morimura et al., 2020). Some of them are also able to inhibit mycotoxin synthesis or to enhance their detoxification (Legrand et al., 2017; Morimura et al., 2020). Certain biocontrol microorganisms have multiple modes of action, which may be expressed simultaneously or sequentially (Legrand et al., 2017).

### 3.1 Induced systemic resistance

Induced Systemic Resistance (ISR) is the phenomenon whereby a plant, once appropriately stimulated by biological or chemical

inducers, exhibits enhanced resistance when challenged by a pathogen (Walters et al., 2013). ISR involves (i) the plant perception of inducing signals, (ii) signal transduction by plant tissues, and (iii) expression of plant mechanisms inhibiting penetration of the pathogen into the host tissues (Magnetra et al., 2016). A wide variety of microorganisms, including the bacteria *Pseudomonas*, *Bacillus*, *Streptomyces* and the fungi *Trichoderma* and non-pathogenic *F. oxysporum* can induce ISR (Fuchs et al., 1997; Choudhary et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2014; Galletti et al., 2020) in plants against *Fusarium* (Table 1). ISR in the plant-*Fusarium* system is based on microbial induction of the activity of various defense-related enzymes in plants, such as chitinase (Amer et al., 2014), lipoxygenase (Aydi Ben Abdallah et al., 2017), polyphenol oxidase (Akram et al., 2013), peroxidase, phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (Zhao et al., 2012), β-1,3-glucanase, catalase (Sundaramoorthy et al., 2012), and also the accumulation of phytoalexins, defense metabolites against fungi (Kuć, 1995). Cyclic lipopeptide antibiotics, e.g. fusaricidin (Li and Chen, 2019) and external cell components, e.g. lipopolysaccharides (LPS) (Leeman et al., 1995) can also trigger ISR. Some biocontrol agents can lead to ISR in different plant species, while other biocontrol agents show plant species specificity, suggesting specific recognition between microorganisms and receptors on the root surface (Choudhary et al., 2007).

*Bacillus amyloliquefaciens* subsp. *plantarum* strain SV65 was assessed on tomato plants infected or not with *F. oxysporum* f. sp.

<table><caption>TABLE 1 Biocontrol agents, plant-*Fusarium* systems and ISR mechanisms.</caption><thead><tr><td>Biocontrol agent</td><td>Plant</td><td>Pathogen</td><td>Mechanism</td><td>Reference</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bacillus amyloliquefaciens</td><td>Tomato</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Induction of genes coding for lipoxygenase or pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins, i.e. acidic protein PR-1 and PR-3 chitinases</td><td>Aydi Ben Abdallah et al., 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Bacillus thuringiensis</td><td>Tomato</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Increase in polyphenol oxidase, phenyl ammonia lyase and peroxidase in plant</td><td>Akram et al., 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Bacillus megaterium</td><td>Tomato</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Induction of chitinase, β-1,3-glucanase, peroxidase and polyphenol oxidase activities in plant</td><td>Amer et al., 2014</td></tr><tr><td>Bacillus subtilis</td><td>Tomato</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Increased activities of phenylalanine ammonia-lyase, polyphenol oxidase, and peroxidase enzymes in plant</td><td>Akram et al., 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas protegens (in combination and alone)</td><td>Chilli</td><td>F. solani</td><td>Increased activities of peroxidase, polyphenol oxidase, phenylalanine ammonia lyase, β-1,3-glucanase, chitinase enzymes and phenol compounds involved in the synthesis of phytoalexins</td><td>Sundaramoorthy et al., 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Bacillus sp., Brevibacillus brevis and Mesorhizobium ciceri (in combination)</td><td>Chickpea</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Increase in peroxidase, polyphenol oxidase, phenylalanine ammonia lyase, phenols and total proteins in plants</td><td>Kumari and Khanna, 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Brevibacillus parabrevis</td><td>Cumin</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Increase in peroxidase and polyphenol oxidase in plants</td><td>Abo-Elyousr et al., 2022</td></tr><tr><td>Burkholderia gladioli</td><td>Saffron</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Increased levels of endogenous jasmonic acid (JA) and expression of JA-regulated and plant defense genes</td><td>Ahmad et al., 2022</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</td><td>Tomato</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Bacterial production of 3-hydroxy-5-methoxy benzene methanol</td><td>Fatima and Anjum, 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudomonas simiae</td><td>Tomato</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Bacterial production of lipopolysaccharides</td><td>Duijff et al., 1997</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Continued</caption><thead><tr><td>Biocontrol agent</td><td>Plant</td><td>Pathogen</td><td>Mechanism</td><td>Reference</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pseudomonas defensor</td><td>Radish</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Bacterial production of lipopolysaccharides</td><td>Leeman et al., 1995</td></tr><tr><td>Paenibacillus polymyxa</td><td>Cucumber</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Bacterial production of fusaricidin, which induces ISR via salicylic acid</td><td>Li and Chen, 2019</td></tr><tr><td>P. fluorescens</td><td>Barley</td><td>F. culmorum</td><td>Changed transcript levels of lipid transfer proteins and protease inhibitors</td><td>Petti et al., 2010</td></tr><tr><td>Streptomyces enissocaesilis</td><td>Tomato</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Increased catalase activity in plant</td><td>Abbasi et al., 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Streptomyces rochei</td><td>Tomato</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Increased catalase and peroxidase activity in plant</td><td>Abbasi et al., 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Streptomyces bikiniensis</td><td>Cucumber</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Increased activities of peroxidase, phenylalanine ammonia-lyase, and β-1,3-glucanase in plant</td><td>Zhao et al., 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Trichoderma gamsii</td><td>Maize</td><td>F. verticillioides</td><td>Enhanced transcript levels of ISR marker genes</td><td>Galletti et al., 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Trichoderma longibrachiatum</td><td>Onion</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Accumulation of 25 stress-response metabolites</td><td>Abdelrahman et al., 2016</td></tr><tr><td>Non-pathogenic Fusarium oxysporum</td><td>Tomato</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Increased activities of chitinase, β-1,3-glucanase and β-1,4-glucosidase</td><td>Fuchs et al., 1997</td></tr></tbody></table>

lycopersici (FOL). The expression of genes coding for lipoxygenase or pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins, i.e. acidic protein PR-1 and PR-3 chitinases was induced by *B. amyloliquefaciens* subsp. *plantarum* SV65 in both FOL-inoculated and uninoculated plants, suggesting its ability to induce ISR (Aydi Ben Abdallah et al., 2017). Inoculation of chilli plants with *Bacillus subtilis* EPCO16 and EPC5 and *P. protegens* Pf1, separately or in combination, induced ISR, with enhanced phytoalexin activities, and protected plants against *F. solani* (Sundaramoorthy et al., 2012). Inoculation of chickpea plants with a combination of *Bacillus* sp., *Brevibacillus brevis* and *Mesorhizobium ciceri* lead to the accumulation of peroxidase, polyphenol oxidase, phenylalanine ammonia lyase and phenols in plants as well as resistance to *F. oxysporum* (Kumari and Khanna, 2019). *Paenibacillus polymyxa* WLY78 controls Fusarium wilt, caused by *Fusarium oxysporum* f. sp. *cucumerinum*, through the production of fusaricidin, which can induce ISR in cucumber via the salicylic acid pathway (Li and Chen, 2019). Tomato showed increased catalase and peroxidase activities when treated with either *Streptomyces* sp. IC10 and Y28, or with Y28 alone, respectively, outlining a strain-specific ISR in tomato against Fusarium wilt mediated by FOL (Abbasi et al., 2019). *Streptomyces bikiniensis* increased the activities of peroxidase, phenylalanine ammonia-lyase and β-1,3-glucanase in cucumber leaves (Zhao et al., 2012). Nonpathogenic *Fusarium oxysporum* Fo47 can trigger induced resistance to FOL and protects tomato from Fusarium wilt (Fuchs et al., 1999). *Trichoderma gamsii* IMO5 increased transcript levels of ISR-marker genes *ZmLOX10*, *ZmAOS* and *ZmHPL* in maize leaves, thereby protecting the plant from the pink ear rot pathogen *F. verticillioides* (Galletti et al., 2020).

An important determinant of biocontrol efficacy is the population density of ISR-triggering microorganisms. For example, ~10⁵ CFU of *Pseudomonas defensor* (ex fluorescens)

WCS374 per g of root are required for significant suppression of Fusarium wilt of radish (Raaijmakers et al., 1995). Another important feature of ISR in plants is that its effects are not only expressed at the site of induction but also in plant parts that are distant from the site of induction (Pieterse et al., 2014). For example, root-colonizing *Pseudomonas simiae* (ex fluorescens) WCS417r induced resistance in carnation, with phytoalexin accumulation in stems, and protected shoots from *F. oxysporum* (Van Peer et al., 1991). Priming of barley heads with *P. fluorescens* MKB158 led to changes in the levels of 1203 transcripts (including some involved in host defense responses), upon inoculation with pathogenic *F. culmorum* (Petti et al., 2010).

## 3.2 Competition for space and nutrients

In the case of competition, biocontrol of pathogens occurs when another microorganism is able to colonize the environment faster and use nutrient sources more efficiently than the pathogen itself, especially under limited conditions (Maheshwari et al., 2013; Legrand et al., 2017). Bacteria and fungi have the ability to compete with *Fusarium*, but the underlying mechanism of competition is sometimes unclear. For example, competition between non-pathogenic *F. oxysporum* strains and pathogenic *F. oxysporum* has been described, reducing disease incidence (Eparvier and Alabouvette, 1994; Fuchs et al., 1999). Similarly, a non-aflatoxigenic *Aspergillus flavus* strain was found to outcompete a mycotoxin-producing *F. verticillioides* during colonization of maize (Reis et al., 2020). Competition may involve bacteria such as *Pseudomonas cepeferrum* (ex *putida*) strain WCS358, which suppresses Fusarium wilt of radish (Lemanceau et al., 1993).

In some cases, traits involved in competition have been identified. In *P. putida* (Trevisan) Migula isolate Corvallis,
competition for root colonization entails plant's production of agglutinin, and *P. putida* mutants lacking the ability to agglutinate with this plant glycoprotein showed reduced levels of rhizosphere colonization and suppression of Fusarium wilt of cucumber (Tari and Anderson, 1988). *P. cajefferrum* WCS358 suppresses Fusarium wilt of radish by competing for iron through the production of its pseudobactin siderophore (Lemanceau et al., 1993). In addition to bacteria, the fungus *Trichoderma asperellum* strain T34 can control the disease caused by *F. oxysporum* f. sp. *lycopersici* on tomato plants by competing for iron (Segarra et al., 2010).

### 3.3 Amensalism based on antibiosis or lytic enzymes

Another important microbial mechanism to suppress plant pathogens is the secretion of inhibitors by beneficial microorganisms. They include anti-fungal secondary metabolites, sometimes termed antibiotics (e.g. fengycin, iturin, surfactin (Chen et al., 2018), fusaricidin and polymyxin (Zalila-Kolsi et al., 2016)), as well as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs; Zaim et al., 2016; Legrand et al., 2017) (Table 2). Extracellular lytic enzymes such as cellulase, chitinase, pectinase, xylanase (Khan et al., 2018), protease and glucanase (Saravanakumar et al., 2017), can also interfere with *Fusarium* growth or activity.

*Bacillota* representatives (formerly *Firmicutes*), i.e. *Bacillus* and *Brevibacillus* species are highlighted in several studies as candidates for *Fusarium* biocontrol through production of anti-fungal metabolites (Palazzini et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2020). *Bacillus subtilis* SG6 has the ability to produce fengycins and surfactins acting against *F. graminearum* (Zhao et al., 2014), whereas *Bacillus velezensis* LM2303 exhibited strong inhibition of *F. graminearum* and significantly reduced FHB severity under field conditions (Chen et al., 2018). Genome mining of *B. velezensis* LM2303 identified 13 biosynthetic gene clusters encoding secondary metabolites and chemical analysis confirmed their presence. These metabolites included three antifungal metabolites (fengycin B, iturin A, and surfactin A) and eight antibacterial metabolites (surfactin A, butirosin, plantazolicin and hydrolyzed plantazolicin, kijanimicin, bacilysin, difficidin, bacillaene A and bacillaene B, 7-o-malonyl macrolactin A and 7-o-succinyl macrolactin A) (Chen et al., 2018). *Brevibacillus fortis* NRS-1210 produces edeine, a compound with antimicrobial activity, which inhibits chlamydospore germination and conidia growth in *F. oxysporum* f. sp. *cepae* (Johnson et al., 2020). *Pseudomonadota* representatives (formerly *Proteobacteria*) are also known for disturbing *Fusarium* growth or activity. Thin layer chromatography analysis showed that *Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus* produces pyoluteorin, which is involved in the suppression of *F. oxysporum* (Logeshwarn et al., 2011), while *Burkholderia* sp. HQB-1 produces phenazine-1-carboxylic acid, which is efficient at controlling Fusarium wilt of banana, caused by *F. oxysporum* f. sp. cubense (Xu et al., 2020). *Pseudomonas* sp. EM85 was successful in suppressing disease caused by *F. verticillioides* and *F. graminearum*, by producing antifungal

<table><caption>TABLE 2 Biocontrol agents, plant-*Fusarium* systems and biocontrol enzymes and metabolites.</caption><thead><tr><td>Biocontrol agents</td><td>Fusarium pathogens</td><td>Biocontrol enzymes and metabolites</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bacillus subtilis</td><td>F. oxysporum<br>F. graminearum</td><td>Cellulase, chitinase, pectinase, xylanase, protease, fengycins and surfactins</td><td>Zhao et al., 2014; Zalila-Kolsi et al., 2016; Khan et al., 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Bacillus velezensis</td><td>F. graminearum<br>F. culmorum</td><td>Fengycin B, iturin A, surfactin A and siderophores</td><td>Chen et al., 2018; Adeniji et al., 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Bacillus pumilus</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Chitinolytic enzymes and antibiotic surfactin</td><td>Agarwal et al., 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Bacillus amyloliquefaciens</td><td>F. graminearum</td><td>Iturin and surfactin</td><td>Zalila-Kolsi et al., 2016</td></tr><tr><td>Brevibacillus fortis</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Edeine</td><td>Johnson et al., 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Brevibacillus reuszeri</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Chitinolytic enzymes</td><td>Masri et al., 2021</td></tr><tr><td>Burkholderia sp.</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Phenazine-1-carboxylic acid</td><td>Xu et al., 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Chryseobacterium sp.</td><td>F. solani</td><td>VOCs</td><td>Tyc et al., 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Antibiotic (pyoluteorin) and VOCs</td><td>Logeshwarn et al., 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Kosakonia arachidis</td><td>F. verticillioides<br>F. oxysporum</td><td>Chitinase, protease, cellulase and endoglucanase</td><td>Singh et al., 2021</td></tr><tr><td>Lysobacter antibioticus</td><td>F. graminearum</td><td>VOCs</td><td>Kim et al., 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Paenibacillus polymyxa</td><td>F. graminearum<br>F. oxysporum</td><td>Fusaricidin, polymyxin and VOCs</td><td>Raza et al., 2015; Zalila-Kolsi et al., 2016</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudomonas sp.</td><td>F. verticillioides<br>F. graminearum</td><td>Antifungal antibiotics and fluorescent pigments</td><td>Pal et al., 2001</td></tr><tr><td>Streptomyces spp.</td><td>F. oxysporum</td><td>Antibiotic compounds, lipopeptin A and lipopeptin B</td><td>Cuesta et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2023</td></tr><tr><td>Trichoderma sp.</td><td>F. oxysporum<br>F. caeruleum</td><td>Pyrones, koningins and viridins</td><td>Reino et al., 2008</td></tr></tbody></table>

antibiotics and fluorescent pigments (Pal et al., 2001). Besides bacteria, *Trichoderma* fungi synthesize a number of secondary metabolites such as pyrones (which completely inhibit spore germination of *F. oxysporum*), koningins (which affect the growth of *F. oxysporum*) and viridin (which prevents the germination of spores of *F. caeruleum*) (Reino et al., 2008).

VOCs have recently received more attention, as they can enable interactions between organisms in the soil ecosystem through both
water and air phases (De Boer et al., 2019). Paenibacillus polymyxa WR-2 produced VOCs when cultivated in the presence of organic fertilizer and root exudates. Among them, benzothiazole, benzaldehyde, undecanal, dodecanal, hexadecanal, 2-tridecanone and phenol inhibited mycelial growth and spore germination of F. oxysporum f. sp. niveum (Raza et al., 2015). Chryseobacterium sp. AD48 inhibited growth of F. solani through the production of VOCs (Tyc et al., 2015). VOCs produced by Lysobacter antibioticus HS124 enhanced mycelial development, but they also reduced sporulation and spore germination of F. graminearum at the same time (Kim et al., 2019). In addition, testing the antagonistic mechanisms of Aspergillus pseudocaelatus and T. gamsii revealed the presence of the VOCs 2,3,4-trimethoxyphenylethylamine, 3-methoxy-2-(1-methylethyl)-5-(2-methylpropyl) pyrazine, (Z)-9-octadecenamide, pyrrolo [1,2-a] pyrazine-1,4-dione, hexahydro-3-(2-methylpropyl)-, thieno [2,3-c] pyridine-3-carboxamide,4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-2-amino-6-methyl- and hexadecanamide, which have an inhibitory activity against F. solani (Zohair et al., 2018).

Regarding extracellular lytic enzymes, B. subtilis 30VD-1 inhibited FOL by producing cellulase, chitinase, pectinase, xylanase and protease (Khan et al., 2018), while Bacillus pumilus synthesized a chitinolytic enzyme that reduced severity of disease caused by F. oxysporum on buckwheat under gnotobiotic conditions (Agarwal et al., 2017). Brevibacillus reuszeri affected the growth of F. oxysporum by producing chitinolytic enzymes (Masri et al., 2021). Kosakonia arachidis EF1 produced different cell-wall degrading enzymes, such as chitinases, proteases, cellulases and endoglucanases, which inhibited growth of F. verticillioides and F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense. Scanning electron microscopy revealed broken fungal mycelia surface and hyphae fragmentation when pathogens were grown in the presence of K. arachidis EF1 (Singh et al., 2021).

## 3.4 Parasitism

Mycoparasitism is an ancient lifestyle, during which one fungus parasitizes another fungus (Kubicek et al., 2011). It involves direct physical contact with the host mycelium (Pal and McSpadden Gardener, 2006), secretion of cell wall-degrading enzymes and subsequent hyphal penetration (Viterbo et al., 2002). Mycoparasitic relationships can be biotrophic, where the host remains alive and the mycoparasitic fungus obtains nutrients from the mycelium of its partner, or necrotrophic, where the parasite contacts and penetrates the host, resulting in the death of the host and allowing the mycoparasite to use the remains of the host as a nutrient source (Jeffries, 1995). Several species of fungi are mycoparasitic, of which Trichoderma is the best described. Contact between the mycoparasitic fungi Gliocladium roseum, Penicillium frequentans, T. atroviride, T. longibrachiatum or T. harzianum and their phytopathogenic targets F. culmorum, F. graminearum and F. nivale triggers the formation of various mycoparasitic structures, such as hooks and pincers, which lead to cell disruption in the phytopathogens (Pisi et al., 2001). When T. asperellum and T. harzianum were grown in the presence of F. solani cell wall, they secreted several cell wall-degrading enzymes, such as β-1,3-glucanase, N-acetylglucosaminidases, chitinase, acid phosphatase,

acid proteases and alginate lyase (Qualhato et al., 2013), and similarly, Clonostachys rosea produced chitinase and β-1,3-glucanase in the presence of F. oxysporum cell wall (Chatterton and Punja, 2009). Sphaerodes mycoparasitica is a biotrophic fungus that parasitizes F. avenaceum, F. oxysporum and F. graminearum hyphae and forms hooks as parasitic structures (Vujanović and Goh, 2009). However, the direct contribution of mycoparasitism to biological control is difficult to quantify as mycoparasitic fungi typically exhibit a number of different biocontrol mechanisms (Pal and McSpadden Gardener, 2006).

## 3.5 Inhibition and detoxification of mycotoxins

Biocontrol research often focuses on pathogen inhibition, and effects on mycotoxin synthesis or detoxification are often neglected (Pellan et al., 2020). It can be expected that Fusarium inhibition will diminish mycotoxin synthesis, but one comprehensive study found that B. amyloliquefaciens FZB42 inhibited F. graminearum but at the same time stimulated biosynthesis of DON toxin (Gu et al., 2017). Conversely, DON production of F. graminearum (on wheat kernels) was reduced by more than 80% with B. amyloliquefaciens WPS4-1 and WPP9 (Shi et al., 2014), and Paenibacillus polymyxa W1-14-3 and C1-8-b (He et al., 2009), whereas Pseudomonas strains MKB158 and MKB249 significantly reduced DON production in F. culmorum-infected wheat seeds (Khan and Doohan, 2009). Pseudomonas sp. MKB158 lowered expression of the gene coding for trichodiene synthase (an enzyme involved in the production of trichothecene mycotoxins in Fusarium) by 33%, in wheat treated with F. culmorum (Khan et al., 2006). DON production in both F. graminearum and F. verticillioides was also inhibited by the fungus T. asperellum TV1 and the oomycete Pythium oligandrum M1/ATCC (Pellan et al., 2020). Other mycotoxins may be targeted, as Trichoderma harzianum Q710613, T. atroviride Q710251 and T. asperellum Q710682 decreased ZEA production in a dual-culture assay with F. graminearum (Tian et al., 2018), and Streptomyces sp. XY006 lowered the synthesis of fusaric acid in Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense (Wang et al., 2023).

# 4 Soils suppressive to Fusarium diseases

## 4.1 General suppressiveness

Soils that are suppressive to soil-borne diseases have been known for more than 70 years (Vasudeva and Roy, 1950), and disease suppression is associated primarily with the activity of beneficial microorganisms (Schlatter et al., 2017). These microorganisms interact with phytopathogens, thus affecting their survival, development or infection of the plant (Weller et al., 2002; Raaijmakers et al., 2009). Two types of soil suppressiveness have been described, i.e. general (microbial community-based) suppressiveness and specific (microbial population-based)
suppressiveness (Schlatter et al., 2017). General suppressiveness is dependent on the entire soil microbial biomass, which causes pathogen inhibition through various mechanisms, especially competition and the microbial release of inhibitors (Garbeva et al., 2011; De Boer et al., 2019), and it cannot be transferred experimentally between the soils (Weller et al., 2002). Hence, all soils may present some level of general suppressiveness to soil-borne diseases, and this level depends on soil type, agricultural practices and total microbial activity (Janvier et al., 2007; Raaijmakers et al., 2009).

General suppressiveness typically results in the inability of the pathogen to survive and proliferate in soil, and is termed fungistasis in the case of fungal phytopathogens. Fungistasis can affect *Fusarium* pathogens (De Boer et al., 2019; Legrand et al., 2019), but its significance in relation to different *Fusarium* species or *formae speciales* needs clarification. Legrand et al. (2019) determined the soil fungistasis status of 31 wheat fields in the case of *F. graminearum*, highlighting higher bacterial diversity, a higher prevalence of *Pseudomonas* and *Bacillus* species and a denser network of co-occurring bacterial taxa in soils with fungistasis. It suggests the importance of cooperations within diversified bacterial communities (including with antagonistic taxa) to control *F. graminearum* in soil (Legrand et al., 2019). Accordingly, both bacterial and fungal communities differed between Fusarium wilt-diseased soils vs healthy (presumably suppressive) soils taken from from eight countries and grown with different crop plants (Yuan et al., 2020).

## 4.2 Specific suppressiveness to *Fusarium* diseases

Besides general suppressiveness, there is also specific suppression to certain diseases, which relies on the activity of a few plant-protecting microbial groups (Weller et al., 2007; Almario et al., 2014; Mousa and Raizada, 2016). Specific suppressiveness may be conferred to non-suppressive soils (i.e. conducive soils) by

inoculating them with 0.1% - 10% of suppressive soil (Garbeva et al., 2004; Raaijmakers et al., 2009). Although abiotic factors, such as soil physicochemical properties, may contribute to the control of a given pathogen, specific suppressiveness is essentially a phenomenon mediated by beneficial soil microorganisms, since sterilization processes convert suppressive into conducive soils (Garbeva et al., 2004). It is expected that specific suppressiveness entails the contribution of a few plant-protecting microbial groups (Weller et al., 2007), but microbial community comparison of suppressive vs conducive soils may evidence significant differences for a large number of taxa (Kyselková et al., 2009; Legrand et al., 2019; Ossowicki et al., 2020; Yuan et al., 2020; Lv et al., 2023).

The phenomenon of disease suppressiveness has been described for many soil-borne fungal pathogens, including *Gaeumannomyces graminis* var. tritici (Shipton et al., 1973; Weller et al., 2007; Schlatter et al., 2017), *Thievalopsis basicola* (Stutz et al., 1986; Almario et al., 2014) and *Rhizoctonia solani* (Mendes et al., 2011; Schlatter et al., 2017). It is also well established in the case of several *Fusarium* pathogenic species (Table 3), such as *F. culmorum* on wheat (in the Netherlands and Germany; Ossowicki et al., 2020) and barley (in Denmark; Rasmussen et al., 2002), *F. oxysporum* f. sp. albedinis on palm tree (in Marocco; Rouxel and Sedra, 1989), *F. oxysporum* f. sp. batatas on sweet potato (in California; Smith and Snyder, 1971), *F. oxysporum* f. sp. cubense on banana (in India, Indonesia, China, Gran Canaria island and several Central America states; Stotzky and Torrence Martin, 1963; Domínguez et al., 1996; Shen et al., 2015b; Wang et al., 2019; Nisrina et al., 2021; Yadav et al., 2021; Fan et al., 2023), *F. oxysporum* f. sp. cucumerinum on cucumber (in California; Sneh et al., 1984) and cape gooseberry (in Colombia; Bautista et al., 2023), *F. oxysporum* f. sp. dianthi on carnation (in Italy; Garibaldi et al., 1983), *F. oxysporum* f. sp. fragariae on strawberry (in Korea; Cha et al., 2016), *F. oxysporum* f. sp. lini on flax (in Italy, California; Kloepper et al., 1980; Tamietti and Pramotton, 1990), *F. oxysporum* f. sp. lycopersici on tomato (in France, Italy; Tamietti and Alabouvette, 1986; Tamietti et al., 1993) and wheat (in Italy; Tamietti and Matta, 1984), *F. oxysporum* f. sp.

<table><caption>TABLE 3 List of locations with soils suppressive to *Fusarium* diseases known to date, with a pathosystem, disease and the underlying suppression mechanism.</caption><thead><tr><td>Pathogen</td><td>Disease</td><td>Country</td><td>Suppression mechanism</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>F. culmorum</td><td>Seedling blight of barley</td><td>Denmark</td><td>Soil microbiota that has a more efficient cellulolytic activity</td><td>Rasmussen et al., 2002</td></tr><tr><td>F. culmorum</td><td>F. culmorum disease in wheat</td><td>Netherlands and Germany</td><td>No specific taxa, but a guild of bacteria working together</td><td>Ossowicki et al., 2020</td></tr><tr><td>F. graminearum</td><td>No disease suppression tested, only fungistasis</td><td>Britanny, France</td><td>Pseudomonas and Bacillus</td><td>Legrand et al., 2019</td></tr><tr><td>F. graminearum Fgl1</td><td>Wheat damping-off</td><td>Serbia</td><td>Under progress</td><td>Todorović et al., unpublished data</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. albedinis</td><td>Bayoud vascular wilt of palm tree</td><td>Marocco</td><td>Competition with soil microbiota</td><td>Rouxel and Sedra, 1989</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. melonis</td><td>Fusarium wilt of watermelon</td><td>Châteaurenard, France</td><td>Competition with soil microbiota including non-pathogenic Fusarium</td><td>Louvet et al., 1976; Alabouvette et al., 1985</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>TABLE 3 Continued</caption><thead><tr><td>Pathogen</td><td>Disease</td><td>Country</td><td>Suppression mechanism</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. fragariae</td><td>Fusarium wilt of strawberry</td><td>Korea</td><td>Streptomyces, wilt-suppressive soil that was developed through monoculture</td><td>Cha et al., 2016</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. dianthi</td><td>Vascular wilting disease of carnations</td><td>Albenga, Italy</td><td>Competition with other Fusarium</td><td>Garibaldi et al., 1983</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. batatas</td><td>Fusarium wilt on sweet potato</td><td>California, USA</td><td>No data</td><td>Smith and Snyder, 1971</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense</td><td>Fusarium wilt of banana disease</td><td>Ayodhya district, India</td><td>Bacillus licheniformis producing anti-fungal secondary metabolites</td><td>Yadav et al., 2021</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense</td><td>Fusarium wilt of banana disease</td><td>Gran Canaria, Spain</td><td>Sodium in soil</td><td>Dominguez et al., 1996</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense</td><td>Fusarium wilt of banana disease</td><td>Indonesia</td><td>Pseudomonas and Burkholderia</td><td>Nisrina et al., 2021</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense</td><td>Fusarium wilt of banana disease</td><td>Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama and Guatemala</td><td>Clay mineralogy, presence of montmorillonite-type clay in suppressive soil</td><td>Stotzky and Torrence Martin, 1963</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense</td><td>Fusarium wilt of banana disease</td><td>Hainan, China</td><td>Pseudomonas inducing jasmonate and salicylic acid pathways and shared core microbiome in suppressive soils</td><td>Shen et al., 2015b; Zhou et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2022; Lv et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense</td><td>Fusarium wilt of banana disease</td><td>Yunnan, China</td><td>Bacillus and Sphingomonas negatively correlated to F. oxysporum. B. velezensis strain YN1910 presented biocontrol properties</td><td>Fan et al., 2023</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum</td><td>Fusarium wilt of cape gooseberry</td><td>Colombia</td><td>Higher prevalence of certain bacterial taxa</td><td>Bautista et al., 2023</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. physalis</td><td>Fusarium wilt of cucumber</td><td>California, USA</td><td>Pseudomonas siderophores and lytic bacteria</td><td>Sneh et al., 1984</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. lini</td><td>Fusarium wilt of flax</td><td>California, USA</td><td>Pseudomonas siderophores</td><td>Kloepper et al., 1980</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. lini</td><td>Fusarium wilt of flax</td><td>Carmagnola and Santena, Italy</td><td>Competition with other Fusarium</td><td>Tamietti and Pramotton, 1990</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici</td><td>Fusarium wilt of tomato</td><td>Noirmoutier, France</td><td>Non-pathogenic F. oxysporum</td><td>Tamietti and Alabouvette, 1986</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici</td><td>Fusarium wilt of wheat</td><td>Albenga, Italy</td><td>Non-pathogenic F. oxysporum inducing plant defense</td><td>Tamietti and Matta, 1984</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici</td><td>Fusarium wilt of tomato</td><td>Albenga, Italy</td><td>Non-pathogenic F. oxysporum inducing plant defense</td><td>Tamietti et al., 1993</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. niveum</td><td>Fusarium wilt of watermelon</td><td>Florida, USA</td><td>Wilt-suppressive soil that was developed through monoculture</td><td>Larkin et al., 1993</td></tr><tr><td>F. oxysporum f. sp. radicis-cucumerinum</td><td>Cucumber crown and root rot</td><td>Israel</td><td>Suppressiveness induced by mixing sandy soil with wild rocket (Diplotaxis tenuifolia) debris under field conditions</td><td>Klein et al., 2013</td></tr><tr><td>F. udum Butl.</td><td>Wilt of pigeon-pea</td><td>Dehli, India</td><td>Soil microbiota</td><td>Vasudeva and Roy, 1950</td></tr></tbody></table>

melonis on melon (in France; Louvet et al., 1976), F. oxysporum f. sp. niveum on watermelon (in Florida; Larkin et al., 1993), F. oxysporum f. sp. radicis-cucumerinum on cucumber (in Israel; Klein et al., 2013), F. udum on pigeon-pea (in India; Vasudeva and Roy, 1950), and F. graminearum on wheat (in Serbia; Todorović et al., unpublished data). Therefore, unlike with other pathogenic taxa, suppressiveness is documented across a wide range of Fusarium pathosystems. It also appears that suppressiveness to Fusarium diseases occurs in numerous parts of the world (Figure 3).

## 4.3 Natural and induced specific suppressiveness to Fusarium diseases

Specific suppressiveness is sometimes an intrinsic property of the soil and persists over years, despite changing ecological conditions related to crop rotation. This natural/long-term suppressiveness is well documented for several pathosystems, for instance in Swiss soils suppressive to tobacco black root rot (T. basicola) near Morens (Stutz et al., 1986). Suppressive and
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 3</figcaption></figure>

Geographic locations of the main field sites with soils documented to be suppressive to *Fusarium* diseases, in Europe including France (Noirmoutier Island, Châteaurenard in Southeast France, and Brittany), Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany, Italy (Albenga, Carmagnola, and Santena), Gran Canaria Island (Spain, located in the Atlantic Ocean), and Serbia, in North America (California and Florida), Central America (Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, and Guatemala), South America (Colombia), Asia (Korea, China, India, Israel, and Indonesia), and Africa (Morocco). Each location is marked with the corresponding pathogen: *F. oxysporum* (indicated by a red dot), *F. culmorum* (green triangle), *F. graminearum* (blue square), and *F. udum* (black pentagon).

conducive soils may be located at small geographic distances in the landscape, and differences in plant disease incidence between neighbouring fields that share similar climatic conditions and agronomic practices are attributed by the differences in the resident microbiota in these soils (Almario et al., 2014). Natural suppressiveness has also been extensively studied in the case of *Fusarium* diseases, in particular with the Fusarium wilt suppressive soils of Salinas Valley (California) or Châteaurenard (France). In these soils, Fusarium wilt disease remains minor despite the long history of cultivation of different crops, and the introduction of small amount of these soils to sterilized suppressive soil or conducive soil significantly decreased Fusarium wilt disease incidence (Scher and Baker, 1980; Alabouvette, 1986). In both locations, the small level of disease in plants cannot be attributed to the absence of *Fusarium* in the soil, but rather to plant protection by the soil microbiota (Sneh et al., 1984; Alabouvette et al., 1985; Siegel-Hertz et al., 2018), as found in later investigations (Bautista et al., 2023).

Specific disease suppressiveness can also result from particular farming practices leading to the built-up of a plant-protecting microbiota. Often, this takes place following crop monoculture, typically after early disease outbreak, and is exemplified by take-all decline of wheat (Weller et al., 2002; Sanguin et al., 2009) and barley (Schreiner et al., 2010). Induced suppressiveness is initiated and maintained by monoculture, in the presence of the pathogen *Gaeumannomyces graminis* var. *tritici* (Weller et al., 2002).

Soil suppressiveness to *Fusarium* diseases is usually natural, but cases of induced suppressiveness are also documented. Thus, soils found in Hainan island (China) that were grown for years with banana in confectionation with pathogenic *F. oxysporum* displayed rhizosphere enrichment in microbial taxa conferring protection from banana wilt (termed banana Panama disease) (Shen et al., 2022), watermelon monoculture in Florida induced suppressiveness to wilt caused by *F. oxysporum* f. sp. *niveum* (Larkin et al., 1993), and 15 years of strawberry monoculture in Korea triggered suppressiveness to wilt caused by *F. oxysporum* f. sp. *fragariae* (Cha et al., 2016). Soil addition of wild rocket residues resulted in suppressiveness to cucumber crown and root rot (*F. oxysporum* f. sp. *radicis-cucumerinum*) in Israel (Klein et al., 2013), whereas suppressiveness to Fusarium wilt can also be induced by microbial biofertilizer inoculants reshaping the soil microbiome (Xiong et al., 2017). Thus, organic fertilizer containing *B. amyloliquefaciens* W19 enhanced levels of indigenous *Pseudomonas* spp. and provided suppression of Fusarium wilt of banana (Tao et al., 2020). The combined action of *B. amyloliquefaciens* W19 and *Pseudomonas* spp. is thought to cause a decrease in *Fusarium* density in the root zone of banana. Organic fertilizers inoculated with *Erythrobacter* sp. YH-07 controlled Fusarium wilt in tomato, as a direct result of the bacteria and indirectly by altering the composition of the microbial community (Tang et al., 2023). Organic fertilizer amended with *Bacillus* and *Trichoderma* resulted in an increase in indigenous *Lysobacter* spp., thus indirectly inducing suppression of Fusarium wilt of vanilla (Xiong et al., 2017).
# 5 The microbiome of soils suppressive to Fusarium diseases

## 5.1 Biocontrol microorganisms in soils suppressive to Fusarium diseases

Many biocontrol strains originate from suppressive soils, and they were investigated as a mean to understand disease suppressiveness. In the case of *Fusarium* diseases, examples include *Pseudomonas* sp. Q2-87 (*P. corrugata* subgroup) (Weller et al., 2007), isolated from wheat in take-all decline soils but that protects tomato from *F. oxysporum* f. sp. *radicis-lycopersici*, *Pseudomonas* sp. C7 (*P. corrugata* subgroup) (Lemanceau and Alabouvette, 1991) isolated from soil suppressive to Fusarium wilt of tomato, and non-pathogenic *F. oxysporum* strains Fo47 (Fuchs et al., 1997; Duijff et al., 1998; Fuchs et al., 1999), CAV 255 (Sajeena et al., 2020) and Ro-3 (Bubici et al., 2019). Based on the biocontrol traits thus identified, the corresponding microbial functional groups have been characterized in suppressive vs conducive soils, using isolate collections, molecular fingerprints or sequencing. Fluorescent *Pseudomonas* bacteria, especially those producing the antifungal metabolite 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol, have been extensively targeted in take-all-decline soils (Cook and Rovira, 1976; Weller et al., 2002; Weller et al., 2007) and soils suppressive to black root rot (Stutz et al., 1986; Laville et al., 1992; Kyselková and Moënne-Loccoz, 2012), whereas studies on soils suppressive to *R. solani* diseases have focused on *Pseudomonas* spp. producing antifungal lipopeptides (Mendes et al., 2011), *Streptomyces* spp. producing volatile metabolites (Cordovez et al., 2015) and *Paraburkholderia graminis* producing sulfurous volatile compounds (Carrión et al., 2018). In the case of soils suppressive to *Fusarium* diseases, competition with pathogenic *Fusarium* species is considered important, involving the entire soil microbiota or more specifically non-pathogenic *Fusarium* strains in Châteaurenard soils (Louvet et al., 1976; Alabouvette, 1986), or fluorescent *Pseudomonas* (iron competition; Scher and Baker, 1980; Sneh et al., 1984) in soils of Salinas Valley (California) or Châteaurenard (France). The role of extracellular lytic enzymes can be significant, as soil microbiota may protect barley from *Fusarium culmorum* via a more efficient cellulolytic activity than the pathogen, which consequently is outcompeted for nutrients (Rasmussen et al., 2002). Suppressiveness may result in part from chitinolytic effects of the soil microbiota against the pathogen, based on inhibition of *Fusarium* fungi by chitinases in vitro and effective protection of plant by chitinase-producing inoculants (Veliz et al., 2017). Other modes of action evidenced include the production of antifungal secondary metabolites in wilt-suppressive soils, such as a new thiopeptide by *Streptomyces* (Cha et al., 2016) and phenazines by *Pseudomonas* spp. (Mazurier et al., 2009), and immunity stimulation in banana (induction of the jasmonate and salicylic acid pathways) by fluorescent *Pseudomonas* (Lv et al., 2023).

## 5.2 Microbial diversity in soils suppressive to Fusarium diseases

Specific disease suppressiveness is attributed to the contribution of a few plant-beneficial populations, but comparison of suppressive vs conducive soils has evidenced differences in the occurrence or prevalence of multiple taxa, in the case of suppressiveness to take all (Sanguin et al., 2009; Schreiner et al., 2010; Chng et al., 2015), black root rot (Kyselková et al., 2009), *R. solani*-mediated damping-off (Mendes et al., 2011), or potato common scab (Rosenzweig et al., 2012). Similar findings were made with soils suppressive to *Fusarium* diseases. No single phylum was uniquely associated with *F. oxysporum* wilt suppressiveness in Korean soils, even though *Actinomycetota* (formerly *Actinobacteria*) was identified as the most prevalent bacterial taxa colonizing strawberry in suppressive soils (Cha et al., 2016). Likewise, the bacterial genera *Devosia*, *Flavobacterium* and *Pseudomonas* were more abundant (and the pathogen less abundant) in Chinese soils suppressive to banana wilt than in conducive soils, and *Pseudomonas* inoculants isolated from suppressive could control the disease (Lv et al., 2023). Compared with conducive soil, Fusarium wilt suppressive soil from Châteaurenard displayed higher relative abundance of *Adhaeribacter*, *Arthrobacter*, *Amycolatopsis*, *Geobacter*, *Massilia*, *Microvirga*, *Paenibacillus*, *Rhizobium*, *Rhizobacter*, *Rubrobacter* and *Stenotrophomonas* (but not *Pseudomonas*) (Siegel-Hertz et al., 2018). However, differences were also found in the fungal community, with several fungal genera (*Acremonium*, *Ceratobasidium*, *Chaetomium*, *Cladosporium*, *Clonostachys*, *Mortierella*, *Penicillium*, *Scytalidium*, *Verticillium*, but also *Fusarium*) detected exclusively in the wilt suppressive soil (Siegel-Hertz et al., 2018). Data also pointed to a greater degree of microbial complexity in suppressive soils, with particular co-occurrence networks of taxa (Bakker et al., 2014; Lv et al., 2023). In German and Dutch soils, co-occurrence networks showed that the suppressive soil microbiota involves a guild of bacteria that probably function together, and in two of the suppressive soils this guild is dominated by *Acidobacteriota* (formerly *Acidobacteria*) (Ossowicki et al., 2020).

Many studies focused on a few, geographically-close soils, which does not provide a global view on the importance of microbial diversity. However, two studies have considered geographically diverse agricultural soils suppressive to Fusarium wilt. Various Chinese soils suppressive to banana wilt mediated by *F. oxysporum* were shown to share a common core microbiota, specific to suppressive soils, which included the genus *Pseudomonas* (Shen et al., 2022). In a wider range of soils from the Netherlands and Germany, soils suppressive to *F. culmorum*-mediated wilt of wheat did not display a specific bacterial species that correlated with suppressiveness (Ossowicki et al., 2020). There was no relation either with soil physicochemical composition (i.e. soil type, pH, contents in C, N, or bioavailable Fe, K, Mg, P) or field
history, yet suppressiveness was microbial in nature, as sterilizing suppressive soils made them become conducive. This suggests that each suppressive soil may harbor its own set of phytobeneficial bacteria, supporting the notion of functional redundancy between microbiomes, meaning that different microbiomes may share common functionalities despite taxonomic differences in the microbial actors involved (Lemanceau et al., 2017). Taken together, this might be explained by the fact that protection of wheat from *F. culmorum*-mediated wilt corresponds to a case of natural suppressiveness (Ossowicki et al., 2020), where biogeographic patterns are probably important, whereas soils suppressive to Fusarium wilt of banana are induced by monoculture (Wang et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2022), with convergent effects resulting from similar banana recruitment across different soil types.

To go beyond individual analyses considered separately, we re-analyzed sequence data from five investigations comparing disease-suppressive and conducive soils of cultivated plants (flax, watermelon, bananas, and wheat) infected by different *Fusarium* species (*F. oxysporum* or *F. culmorum*). At the level of bacterial phyla, fluctuations among Châteaurenard (flax-*F. oxysporum*; Siegel-Hertz et al., 2018), Hainan (banana-*F. oxysporum*; Shen et al., 2022) (Figure S1A) and Dutch/German (wheat-*F. culmorum*; Ossowicki et al., 2020) (Figure S1B) suppressive soils were important, as were those among their conducive counterparts, and the comparison between suppressive and conducive soils at these locations was not fruitful. In another study, fluctuations among other Hainan (banana-*F. oxysporum*; Zhou et al., 2019) suppressive or conducive soils were of less magnitude, but again the comparison was not insightful (Figure S1B). In contrast, Jiangsu (watermelon-*F. oxysporum*; Wang et al., 2015) suppressive soils displayed a higher relative abundance of *Acidobacteriota* and *Pseudomonadota* than in conducive soils (Figure S1B), but this property was not relevant when considering the other locations/plant species/*Fusarium* species. Based on heatmap comparisons (Figure S2), the main finding was the lower prevalence of the *Bacillota* phylum in the Jiangsu (watermelon-*F. oxysporum*) suppressive vs conducive soils, which was restricted to the case of these soils.

At the level of bacterial genera, the comparison of Châteaurenard (flax-*F. oxysporum*), Hainan (banana-*F. oxysporum*) or Dutch/German (wheat-*F. culmorum*) soils did not lead to the identification of indicator taxa (Figures 4, S3), but at Jiangsu (watermelon-*F. oxysporum*) the genera *Bacillus*, *Dongia*, *Rhodoplanes* and *Terrimonas* were less prevalent and the genera *Ferruginibacter*, *Flavobacterium*, *Pseudomonas* and *Sphingomonas* more prevalent in suppressive soils than in conducive soils (Figure S3A). Therefore, the comparison between suppressive and conducive soils was sometimes meaningful at the local scale, but typically not when considering a wider range of geographic or biological (plant and *Fusarium* species) conditions together. In other words, the information available so far points that suppressiveness to *Fusarium* diseases relies on microbial selection processes by roots that depend on local conditions, i.e. probably related to microbial biogeography, soil type, plant species, *Fusarium* genotype and most likely other local factors as well.

# 6 Variability and management of soil suppressiveness to *Fusarium* diseases

## 6.1 Environmental factors influencing soil suppressiveness to *Fusarium* diseases

Environmental conditions in soil may influence *Fusarium* autecology, the composition and activity of the soil microbial community, the tripartite interactions between this microbiota, *Fusarium* pathogens and the plant, and ultimately the level of disease suppressiveness (Marshall and Alexander, 1960; Amir and Alabouvette, 1993; Mazzola, 2002; Czembor et al., 2015). Key environmental factors in this regard include soil physicochemical properties and weather conditions (Weber and Kita, 2010).

Early work on the suppressiveness of soils to vascular Fusarium diseases drew attention to the positive role of certain abiotic factors and, in particular, montmorillonite-type clays (Stover, 1956; Stotzky and Torrence Martin, 1963). In addition, higher clay contents may contribute to reduced infestation by *Fusarium* (Kurek and Jaroszuk-Ścisel, 2003; Deltour et al., 2017), by altering oxygen diffusion, pH buffering and nutrient availability (Orr and Nelson, 2018). Höper et al. (1995) showed that the level of suppressiveness to Fusarium wilt of flax increased in soils amended with montmorillonite, kaolinite or illite at pH 7. A negative correlation between soil pH and *Fusarium* disease severity was reported in experiments with flax (Senechkin et al., 2014), strawberry (Fang et al., 2012) and banana (Shen et al., 2015a). However, the correlation between pH and Fusarium wilt incidence was positive in studies on banana (Peng et al., 1999) and watermelon (Cao et al., 2016). Certain experiments acidified soil originally at pH 8.0 (Peng et al., 1999) or 7.4 (Cao et al., 2016), whereas others limed an acidic soil (Fang et al., 2012; Senechkin et al., 2014; Shen et al., 2015a). Inconsistencies may relate to the complexity of pH effects on *Fusarium* pathogens and diseases, and possible interactions with soil properties, *Fusarium* and plant genotypes, or other experimental conditions. In addition, soil suppressiveness to Fusarium wilt necessitates sufficient levels of nitrogen, as disease incidence negatively correlates with the $NH_4^+$ and $NO_3^-$ contents in the soil (Li et al., 2016; Meng et al., 2019). Moreover, the addition of calcium to the soils suppressed Fusarium wilt in several soil type × plant conditions (Spiegel et al., 1987; Peng et al., 1999; Gatch and du Toit, 2017). In Brittany, *F. graminearum* growth positively correlated with manganese and iron contents in the soil (Legrand et al., 2019). A positive correlation was found between hemicellulose concentration and suppression of Fusarium wilt in tomato and carnation (Castaño et al., 2011), as well as cellulose concentration and suppression of Fusarium seedling blight of barley (Rasmussen et al., 2002). This is attributed to the activity of cellulolytic microorganisms that limit *Fusarium* growth, as lower organic matter content (following decomposition) would reduce resources supporting this microbiota and disease suppression (Orr and Nelson, 2018).

Climatic conditions, notably temperature and precipitation may strongly affect the incidence of *Fusarium* diseases (Orr and Nelson, 2018). Phytopathogenic species *F. oxysporum*, *F. solani*, *F. verticillioides*, *F. graminearum* and *F. culmorum* develop best
A

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

B

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 4</figcaption></figure>

Heatmap of the major bacterial genera detected in the rhizosphere of plants grown in soils suppressive or conducive to different *Fusarium* diseases, based on analysis (File S1) of selected studies (Shen et al., 2015b; Siegel-Hertz et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2019; Ossowicki et al., 2020). (A) The 20 most abundant genera in soils conducive or suppressive to diseases caused by *Fusarium oxysporum*. In Siegel-Hertz et al. (2018), suppressive soils were assessed after *Fusarium* inoculation or without. (B) The 20 most abundant genera in soils conducive or suppressive to diseases caused by *Fusarium culmorum*. The color intensity in each cell indicates the relative abundance (%) of a genus in each study for each plant type. When relevant, dotted lines are used to separate pathogen-inoculated samples from non-inoculated samples (in Châteaurenard) or samples from different fields. More details on individual conditions are available in Table S2.

under humid conditions, at water activity above 0.86 (Table S1) (Thrane, 2014). Severity of Fusarium wilt in lettuce (Scott et al., 2009; Ferrocino et al., 2013) and FHB in wheat was positively correlated with soil temperature (Xu et al., 2007; Nazari et al., 2018). For example, Fusarium wilt incidence significantly increased when lettuce was grown at 22-26°C instead of 18-22°C (Ferrocino et al., 2013). Similarly, in both conducive and suppressive soils, severity of Fusarium wilt of banana was significantly increased when temperature was raised from 24°C to 34°C (Peng et al., 1999).

## 6.2 Farming practices and the management of soil suppressiveness to *Fusarium* diseases

As many other soil-inhabiting pathogenic fungi, the *Fusarium* spp. can overwinter as mycelium in plant debris or dormant

structures in the soil, which leads to cause the initial infection of plants in the following season (Nelson et al., 1994; Janvier et al., 2007; Leplat et al., 2013; Xu et al., 2021). Therefore, cultural practices removing the primary inoculum of the pathogen from overwintering soils are useful to prevent future infection (Voigt, 2002). However, farming practices also influence soil suppressiveness by shaping the rhizosphere microbial community (Campos et al., 2016) and stimulating the activity of beneficial rhizosphere microorganisms (Janvier et al., 2007). In this context, various agricultural practices, such as crop rotation/monocropping, tillage, organic amendments and fertilisers, are important to consider to develop suppressiveness-based control methods in farm fields (Janvier et al., 2007; Fu et al., 2016).

Except in the few cases where monoculture induces suppressiveness to *Fusarium* diseases (Larkin et al., 1993; Shen et al., 2022), cropping systems based on rotation of different plant species result in reduced survival of soil-borne pathogen propagules
over the short term (Winter et al., 2014). Crop rotation may reduce severity and incidence of diseases caused by *Fusarium* spp. (Wang et al., 2015; Khemir et al., 2020). For example, compared with the tomato monoculture, soil management under wheat - tomato rotation changes soil microbial composition by increasing the abundance of microbial taxa such as *Bacillus*, *Paenibacillus*, *Pseudomonas*, *Streptomyces*, *Aspergillus*, *Penicillium* and *Mortierella*, which may control Fusarium wilt of tomato (De Corato et al., 2020). Reduced incidence of *F. pseudograminearum* and *F. culmorum* in the soils under cereal - legumes rotation management may be due to the non-host character of the legumes (Evans et al., 2010). However, not all crop rotations lead to reduced disease pressure (Ranzi et al., 2017). In the case of the FHB, it was advocated to rotate wheat and corn with crops like soybean, until it was shown that *F. graminearum* can also cause disease in soybean, as it has a wide range of hosts (Marburger et al., 2015). This suggests that there is no common rule regarding the relationship between crop rotation and Fusarium disease incidence.

Crop residues of high cellulose content promoted the activity of beneficial cellulolytic microorganisms and limited the development of *Fusarium culmorum* (Rasmussen et al., 2002), as organic amendments represent a favorable environment for beneficial microorganisms that are able to combat phytopathogenic *Fusarium* species (Maher et al., 2008; Cuesta et al., 2012). Accordingly, organic amendments like animal manure, solid wastes and different composts are often used to improve soil health by delivering nutrients to the soil and also by stimulating beneficial microbiota (Fu et al., 2016; Mousa and Raizada, 2016). Thus, soils with added organic amendments exhibited inhibitory effects against *F. verticillioides* by reducing the production of a fungal pigment and sporulation, consequently disabling fungal spread (Nguyen et al., 2018). Addition of vermicompost reduced tomato infection by *F. oxysporum* f. sp. lycopersici (Szczech, 1999) and mulched straw contributed to the suppression of seedling blight caused by *F. culmorum* (Knudsen et al., 1999). Soils supplemented with coffee residue compost or rapeseed meal exhibited suppressiveness to *F. oxysporum*-mediated wilt, and microorganisms isolated from supplemented soils inhibited *F. oxysporum* growth on agar plates (Mitsuboshi et al., 2018). Carbon addition to soil influenced the soil microbiome, enhancing *Fusarium*-inhibitory populations from the *Streptomyces* genus (Dundore-Arias et al., 2020). However, increasing organic matter content may promote *Fusarium* survival in certain (rare) cases. One study tested the effects of 18 composts (made from different mixtures of manure, domestic biowaste and green waste) on Fusarium wilt disease suppression, caused by *F. oxysporum* f. sp. *lini*, and it was shown that only one compost did not positively affect the disease suppression (Termorshuizen et al., 2006). The efficiency of organic amendments in controlling plant diseases is determined by the pathosystem, the application rate, the kind of amendment and the level of maturity of composts or disintegration phase of crop residues (Janvier et al., 2007).

Tillage, which is one factor influencing organic matter decomposition, appears to have contrasting effects on soil suppressiveness. Under conventional tillage, tillage depth appears

to play a crucial role in soil survival of *Fusarium*, such that the deeper the tillage, the lower the abundance of *Fusarium* species (Steinkellner and Langer, 2004). This can be partly explained by the fact that the pathogen is displaced from its niche, reducing its ability to survive (Bailey and Lazarovits, 2003), and the rate of decomposition of buried residues is faster than at the soil surface (Leplat et al., 2013). The carbon released during these decomposition processes increases the activity of the soil microbiota, thereby improving the overall functioning of the soil (Bailey and Lazarovits, 2003). Under conservation tillage, surface residues persist and can act as a long-term source of inoculum for plant infection by *F. verticillioides*, *F. proliferatum* and *F. subglutinans*, as they can colonise crop residues and produce overwintering spores that often survive the period when plants are absent from the agrosystem (Bockus and Shroyer, 1998; Cotten and Munkvold, 1998; Pereyra et al., 2004). This is consistent with results suggesting that conservation tillage and leaving crop residues *in situ* increase *Fusarium* abundance (Govaerts et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2020). For example, spores of *Fusarium* species could be recovered from plant residues more than two years after harvest (Pereyra et al., 2004). In certain cases, lower occurrence of plant infection by *F. culmorum*, *F. equiseti* (Weber et al., 2001) and *F. pseudograminearum* (Theron et al., 2023) was found under conservation tillage compared with conventional tillage. These contrasting results might be due to differences in environmental factors, cropping patterns and soil types, which could modulate interactions between soil conditions, *Fusarium* ecology and plant physiology (Sturz and Carter, 1995). The use of simplified tillage practices was proposed to reduce *F. culmorum* abundance, by mixing crop residues with the topsoil layer to promote the growth of beneficial straw-decomposing microorganisms (Weber and Kita, 2010).

Different fertilizers have different effects on phytopathogenic *Fusarium* spp. On one hand, the development of FHB caused by *F. culmorum* and *F. graminearum* increased with inorganic nitrogen fertilization (Lemmens et al., 2004), and on the other hand, nitrite could reduce the population of *F. oxysporum* (Löffler et al., 1986). Besides, higher doses of nitrogen may contribute to higher accumulation of *Fusarium* mycotoxins (Podolska et al., 2017). The addition of phosphorus fertilizer, in the form of P₂O₅, significantly reduced *Fusarium*-caused wilting in chickpea, lentil and lupine, in both greenhouse and field conditions (Elhassan et al., 2010). Organic fertilizers can lead to an increase in indigenous microbial populations, thus contributing to suppression of Fusarium wilt disease (Montalba et al., 2010; Raza et al., 2015). When grown with the addition of organic N fertilizer, highbush blueberry exhibited increased tolerance to *F. solani*, in parallel to increased soil microbial activity and mycorrhizal colonization (Montalba et al., 2010).

## 7 Conclusion and outlook

Disease-suppressiveness of soils is a useful model to understand microbial phytoprotection and develop sustainable plant protection strategies for soils devoid of this property. In this review, we
summarized the current knowledge on *Fusarium* phytopathogens, the available control methods and soils suppressive to *Fusarium* diseases, with the underlying mechanisms involved in the suppression. On one hand, extensive information is available on environmental and microbial properties responsible for suppressiveness to *Fusarium* diseases. One prominent feature is the diversity of *Fusarium*-based pathosystems for which suppressive soils are documented, in terms of *Fusarium* species (often *F. oxysporum*, but not only), host plants (both monocots and dicots), types of disease (often wilt, but not only), geographic locations of soil and farming conditions, and types of suppressiveness (i.e. natural suppressiveness to *Fusarium* diseases, but also monoculture-induced suppressiveness as well as fungistasis towards *Fusarium* pathogens). This diversity is paralleled by differences in microbiota composition and diversity associated with disease control in the different cases of suppressiveness. On the other hand, despite the fact that soils suppressive to *Fusarium* diseases have been studied for decades, they are still poorly understood in terms of microbiota functioning, and knowledge remains fragmented.

On this basis, additional research is needed to integrate further the scientific approaches used to decipher suppressiveness to *Fusarium* diseases. First, by combining complementary assessment methodology with current next-generation sequencing and ecological networks research, and incorporating experimental strategies to manipulate and transplant rhizosphere microbiome (or single microorganisms) of plants grown in suppressive soils to those in conducive soils to go beyond correlative work, as started recently (Ye et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2022). Second, by extending the range of soil conditions investigated, and develop meta-analyses to estimate key microbiota differences between suppressive and conducive soils, as pioneered by Yuan et al. (2020). Third, by considering a wider range of biological actors, including beneficial fungi (often neglected), soil fauna (likely to influence microbial communities, *Fusarium* vectorisation, and plant health; e.g. Dita et al., 2018; Wagner et al., 2022). Fourth, by taking into account plant genetics, behavior and physiological responses to *Fusarium* pathogens (e.g. Liu et al., 2019). Therefore, there is a need for a more multidisciplinary approach to understand microbiota functioning in soils suppressive to *Fusarium* diseases.

## Author contributions

All authors contributed to the writing of this review article and approved the submitted version.

## References

Abbasi, S., Safaie, N., Sadeghi, A., and Shamsbakhsh, M. (2019). *Streptomyces* strains induce resistance to *Fusarium oxysporum* f. sp. lycopersici Race 3 in tomato through different molecular mechanisms. *Front. Microbiol.* 10. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01505

Abdel-Azeem, A. M., Abdel-Azeem, M. A., Darwish, A. G., Nafady, N. A., and Ibrahim, N. A. (2019). "*Fusarium*: Biodiversity, ecological significances, and industrial applications," in *Recent Advancement in White Biotechnology Through Fungi: Volume 1: Diversity and Enzymes Perspectives Fungal Biology*. Eds. A. N. Yadav, S. Mishra, S. Singh and A. Gupta (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 201–261. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-10480-1_6

## Funding

IT was funded by a grant from the Ministry of Youth and Sports, Belgrade, Serbia (grant numbers 670-00-573/1/372/2019-04, 670-00-2590/1/304/2020-04, 670-00-2551/1/298/2021-04 and 670-00-1/1/317/2022-01) and grants from Campus France (grant numbers 964308G, 972203C and 103939T). This research was also funded through the 2018-2019 BiodivERsA joint call for research proposals, under the BiodivERsA3 ERA-Net COFUND programme, and with the funding organization ANR (Paris) (project SuppressSOIL ANR-19-EBI3-0007), as well as by The Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (grant number 451-03-47/2023-01/200116).

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Danis Abrouk (iBio) for help with retrieving metabarcoding sequences from various articles and comparative analyses.

## Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

## Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

## Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1228749/full#supplementary-material

Abdelrahman, M., Abdel-Motaal, F., El-Sayed, M., Jogaiah, S., Shigyo, M., Ito, S., et al. (2016). Dissection of *Trichoderma longibrachiatum* - induced defense in onion (*Allium cepa* L.) against *Fusarium oxysporum* f. sp. *cepae* by target metabolite profiling. *Plant Sci.* 246, 128–138. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2016.02.008
Abo-Elyousr, K. A. M., Saad, M. M., Al-Qurashi, A. D., Ibrahim, O. H. M., and Mousa, M. A. A. (2022). Management of cumin wilt caused by *Fusarium oxysporum* using native endophytic bacteria. *Agronomy* 12, 1–14. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12102510

Adeniji, A. A., Aremu, O. S., and Babalola, O. O. (2019). Selecting lipopeptide-producing, *Fusarium*-suppressing *Bacillus* spp: Metabolomic and genomic probing of *Bacillus velezensis* NWUMfKBS10.5. *MicrobiologyOpen* 8 (6), e00742. doi: 10.1002/mbo.3742

Agarwal, M., Dheeman, S., Dubey, R. C., Kumar, P., Maheshwari, D. K., and Bajpai, V. K. (2017). Differential antagonistic responses of *Bacillus pumilus* MSUA3 against *Rhizoctonia solani* and *Fusarium oxysporum* causing fungal diseases in *Fagopyrum esculentum* Moench. *Microbiol. Res.* 205, 40–47. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2017.08.012

Ahmad, T., Bashir, A., Farooq, S., and Riyaz-Ul-Hassan, S. (2022). *Burkholderia gladioli* E39CS3, an endophyte of *Crocus sativus* Linn., induces host resistance against corm-rot caused by *Fusarium oxysporum*. *J. Appl. Microbiol.* 132, 495–508. doi: 10.1111/jam.15190

Ajmal, M., Hussain, A., Ali, A., Chen, H., and Lin, H. (2023). Strategies for controlling the sporulation in *Fusarium* spp. *J. Fungi*. 9, 10. doi: 10.3390/jof9010010

Akram, W., Anjum, T., and Ali, B. (2015). Searching ISR determinant/s from *Bacillus subtilis* IAGS174 against *Fusarium* wilt of tomato. *BioControl* 60, 271–280. doi: 10.1007/s10526-014-9636-1

Akram, W., Mahboob, A., and Javed, A. A. (2013). *Bacillus thuringiensis* strain 199 can induce systemic resistance in tomato against *Fusarium* wilt. *Eur. J. Microbiol. Immunol.* 3, 275–280. doi: 10.1556/EuJMI.3.2013.4.7

Alabouvette, C. (1986). Fusarium-wilt suppressive soils from the Châteaurenard region : review of a 10-year study. *Agronomie* 6 (3), 273–284. doi: 10.1051/agro:19860307

Alabouvette, C., Couteaudier, Y., Louvet, J., Bremersch, P., Richard, P., and Soulas, M.-L. (1985). Recherches sur la resistance des sols maladies. XI. Etude comparative du comportement des *Fusarium* spp. dans un sol résistant et un sol sensible aux fusarioses vasculaires enrichis en glucose. *Agronomie* 5, 63–68. doi: 10.1051/agro:19850109

Al-Hatmi, A. M., de Hoog, G. S., and Meis, J. F. (2019). Multiresistant *Fusarium* pathogens on plants and humans: solutions in (from) the antifungal pipeline? *Infect. Drug Resist.* 12, 3727–3737. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S180912

Almario, J., Muller, D., Défago, G., and Moënne-Locoz, Y. (2014). Rhizosphere ecology and phytoprotection in soils naturally suppressive to Thielaviopsis black root rot of tobacco. *Environ. Microbiol.* 16, 1949–1960. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12459

Amer, M. A., El-Samra, I. A., Abou-El-Seoud, I. I., Ab-Abd, S. M., and Shawertamimi, N. K. (2014). Induced systemic resistance in tomato plants against Fusarium wilt disease using biotic inducers. *Middle East J. Agric. Res.* 3 (4), 1090–1103.

Amir, H., and Alabouvette, C. (1993). Involvement of soil abiotic factors in the mechanisms of soil suppressiveness to Fusarium wilts. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 25, 157–164. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(93)90022-4

Ares, J. L. A., Ferro, R. C. A., Ramirez, L. C., and González, J. M. (2004). *Fusarium graminearum* Schwabe, a maize root and stalk rot pathogen isolated from lodged plants in Northwest Spain. *Span. J. Agric. Res.* 2, 249–252. doi: 10.5424/sjar/2004022-82

Arie, T. (2019). *Fusarium* diseases of cultivated plants, control, diagnosis, and molecular and genetic studies. *J. Pestic. Sci.* 44, 275–281. doi: 10.1584/jipestics.J19-03

Aydi Ben Abdallah, R., Stedel, C., Garagounis, C., Nefzi, A., Jabnoun-Khiareddine, H., Papadopoulou, K. K., et al. (2017). Involvement of lipopeptide antibiotics and chitinase genes and induction of host defense in suppression of Fusarium wilt by endophytic *Bacillus* spp. in tomato. *Crop Prot.* 99, 45–58. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2017.05.008

Babadoost, M. (2018). "*Fusarium*: Historical and continued importance," in *Fusarium—Plant Diseases, Pathogen Diversity, Genetic Diversity, Resistance and Molecular Markers*. Ed. T. Askun (London, UK: Intech Open), 13–24. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.74147

Backhouse, D., and Burgess, L. W. (2002). Climatic analysis of the distribution of *Fusarium graminearum*, *F. pseudograminearum* and *F. culmorum* on cereals in Australia. *Australas. Plant Pathol.* 31, 321–327. doi: 10.1071/AP02026

Bai, G., and Shaner, G. (1994). Scab of wheat: Prospects for control. *Plant Dis.* 78, 760–766. doi: 10.1094/PD-78-0760

Bailey, K. L., and Lazarovits, G. (2003). Suppressing soil-borne diseases with residue management and organic amendments. *Soil Tillage Res.* 72, 169–180. doi: 10.1016/S0167-1987(03)00086-2

Baker, K. F., and Cook, R. J. (1974). Biological control of plant pathogens. *St. Paul: Am. Phytopathol. Soc.* 433.

Bakker, M. G., Schlatter, D. C., Otto-Hanson, L., and Kinkel, L. L. (2014). Diffuse symbioses: roles of plant–plant, plant–microbe and microbe–microbe interactions in structuring the soil microbiome. *Mol. Ecol.* 23, 1571–1583. doi: 10.1111/mec.12571

Banerjee, A., and Mittra, B. (2018). Morphological modification in wheat seedlings infected by *Fusarium oxysporum*. *Eur. J. Plant Pathol.* 152, 521–524. doi: 10.1007/s10658-018-1470-3

Bastian, F., Jurado, V., Nováková, A., Alabouvette, C., and Saiz-Jimenez, C. (2010). The microbiology of Lascaux cave. *Microbiol. Read. Engl.* 156, 644–652. doi: 10.1099/mic.036160-0

Bautista, D., García, D., Dávila, L., Caro-Quintero, A., Cotes, A. M., González, A., et al. (2023). Studying the microbiome of suppressive soils against vascular wilt, caused

by *Fusarium oxysporum* in cape gooseberry (*Physalis Peruviana*). *Environ. Microbiol. Rep.* 15, 1–12. doi: 10.1111/1758-2229.13195

Berendsen, R. L., Pieterse, C. M. J., and Bakker, P. A. H. M. (2012). The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. *Trends Plant Sci.* 17, 478–486. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2012.04.001

Blacutt, A. A., Gold, S. E., Voss, K. A., Gao, M., and Glenn, A. E. (2018). *Fusarium verticillioides*: Advancements in understanding the toxicity, virulence, and niche adaptations of a model mycotoxigenic pathogen of maize. *Phytopathology* 108, 312–326. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-06-17-0203-RVW

Blümke, A., Falter, C., Herrfurth, C., Sode, B., Bode, R., Schäfer, W., et al. (2014). Secreted fungal effector lipase releases free fatty acids to inhibit innate immunity-related callose formation during wheat head infection. *Plant Physiol.* 165, 346–358. doi: 10.1104/pp.114.236737

Bockus, W. W., and Shroyer, J. P. (1998). The impact of reduced tillage on soilborne plant pathogens. *Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.* 36, 485–500. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.36.1.485

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia (2017) *Fusarium wilt*. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/science/fusarium-wilt (Accessed June 15 2022).

Brown, N. A., Urban, M., van de Meene, A. M. L., and Hammond-Kosack, K. E. (2010). The infection biology of *Fusarium graminearum*: Defining the pathways of spikelet to spikelet colonisation in wheat ears. *Fungal Biol.* 114, 555–571. doi: 10.1016/j.funbio.2010.04.006

Bubici, G., Kaushal, M., Prigigallo, M. I., Gómez-Lama Cabanás, C., and Mercado-Blanco, J. (2019). Biological control agents against Fusarium wilt of banana. *Front. Microbiol.* 10, 616. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00616

Burgess, L. W., and Bryden, W. L. (2012). *Fusarium*: A ubiquitous fungus of global importance. *Microbiol. Aust.* 33, 22–25. doi: 10.1071/MA12022

Burgess, L. W. B., Summerell, A., Backhouse, D., Benyon, F., and Lević, J. (1996). Biodiversity and population studies in *Fusarium*. *Sydowia* 48, 1–11.

Campos, S. B., Lisboa, B. B., Camargo, F. A. O., Bayer, C., Sczyrba, A., Dirksen, P., et al. (2016). Soil suppressiveness and its relations with the microbial community in a Brazilian subtropical agroecosystem under different management systems. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 96, 191–197. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.02.010

Cao, Y., Wang, J., Wu, H., Yan, S., Guo, D., Wang, G., et al. (2016). Soil chemical and microbial responses to biogas slurry amendment and its effect on Fusarium wilt suppression. *Appl. Soil Ecol.* 107, 116–123. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.05.010

Carrión, V. J., Cordovez, V., Tyc, O., Etalo, D. W., de Brujin, I., de Jager, V. C. L., et al. (2018). Involvement of *Burkholderiaceae* and sulfurous volatiles in disease-suppressive soils. *ISME J.* 12, 2307–2321. doi: 10.1038/s41396-018-0186-x

Castaño, R., Borrero, C., and Avilés, M. (2011). Organic matter fractions by SP-MAS 13C NMR and microbial communities involved in the suppression of Fusarium wilt in organic growth media. *Biol. Control.* 58, 286–293. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2011.05.011

Chia, J.-Y., Han, S., Hong, H.-J., Cho, H., Kim, D., Kwon, Y., et al. (2016). Microbial and biochemical basis of a Fusarium wilt-suppressive soil. *ISME J.* 10, 119–129. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2015.95

Chatterton, S., and Punja, Z. K. (2009). Chitinase and beta-1,3-glucanase enzyme production by the mycoparasite *Clonostachys rosea f. catenulata* against fungal plant pathogens. *Can. J. Microbiol.* 55, 356–367. doi: 10.1139/w08-156

Chen, L., Heng, J., Qin, S., and Bian, K. (2018). A comprehensive understanding of the biocontrol potential of *Bacillus velezensis* LM2303 against Fusarium head blight. *PloS One* 13 (6), e0198560. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198560

Chen, Y., Kistler, H. C., and Ma, Z. (2019). *Fusarium graminearum* trichothecene mycotoxins: Biosynthesis, regulation, and management. *Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.* 57, 15–39. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-082718-100318

Chng, S., Cromey, M. G., Dodd, S. L., Stewart, A., Butler, R. C., and Jaspers, M. V. (2015). Take-all decline in New Zealand wheat soils and the microorganisms associated with the potential mechanisms of disease suppression. *Plant Soil.* 397, 239–259. doi: 10.1007/s11104-015-2620-4

Choudhary, D. K., Prakash, A., and Johri, B. N. (2007). Induced systemic resistance (ISR) in plants: mechanism of action. *Indian J. Microbiol.* 47, 289–297. doi: 10.1007/s12088-007-0054-2

Coleman, J. J. (2016). The *Fusarium solani* species complex: ubiquitous pathogens of agricultural importance. *Mol. Plant Pathol.* 17, 146–158. doi: 10.1111/mpp.12289

Constantin, M. E., Fokkens, L., de Sain, M., Takken, F. L., and Rep, M. (2021). Number of candidate effector genes in accessory genomes differentiates pathogenic from endophytic *Fusarium oxysporum* strains. *Front. Plant Sci.* 12, 761740. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.761740

Cook, R. J., and Rovira, A. D. (1976). The role of bacteria in the biological control of *Gaeumannomyces graminis* by suppressive soils. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 8, 269–273. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(76)90056-0

Cordovez, V., Carrion, V. J., Etalo, D. W., Mumm, R., Zhu, H., van Wezel, G. P., et al. (2015). Diversity and functions of volatile organic compounds produced by *Streptomyces* from a disease-suppressive soil. *Front. Microbiol.* 6. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01081

Cotten, T. K., and Munkvold, G. P. (1998.). Survival of *Fusarium moniliforme*, *F. proliferatum*, and *F. subglutinans* in maize stalk residue. *Phytopathology* 88, 550–555. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO.1998.88.6.550
Crous, P. W., Lombard, L., Sandoval-Denis, M., Seifert, K. A., Schroers, H. J., Chaverri, P., et al. (2021). *Fusarium*: more than a node or a foot-shaped basal cell. *Stud. Mycol.* 98, 100116. doi: 10.1016/j.smyco.2021.100116

Cuesta, G., García-de-la-Fuente, R., Abad, M., and Fornes, F. (2012). Isolation and identification of actinomycetes from a compost-amended soil with potential as biocontrol agents. *J. Environ. Manage.* 95, S280-S284. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.023

Curtis, T. P., Sloan, W. T., and Scannell, J. W. (2002). Estimating prokaryotic diversity and its limits. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.* 99, 10494-10499. doi: 10.1073/pnas.142680199

Cuzick, A., Urban, M., and Hammond-Kosack, K. (2008). *Fusarium graminearum* gene deletion mutants map1 and tri5 reveal similarities and differences in the pathogenicity requirements to cause disease on *Arabidopsis* and wheat floral tissue. *New Phytol.* 177, 990-1000. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02333.x

Czembor, E., Stepień, Ł., and Waśkiewicz, A. (2015). Effect of environmental factors on *Fusarium* species and associated mycotoxins in maize grain grown in Poland. *PloS One* 10, e0133644. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133644

da Silva Santos, A. C., Diniz, A. G., Tiago, P. V., and de Oliveira, N. T. (2020). Entomopathogenic *Fusarium* species: a review of their potential for the biological control of insects, implications and prospects. *Fungal Biol. Rev.* 34, 41-57. doi: 10.1016/j.fbr.2019.12.002

Dastjerdi, R., and Karlovsky, P. (2015). Systemic infection of maize, sorghum, rice, and beet seedlings with fumonisin-producing and non-producing *Fusarium verticillioides* strains. *Plant Pathol. J.* 31, 334-342. doi: 10.5423/PPJ.OA.05.2015.0088

Dean, R., Van Kan, J. A. L., Pretorius, Z. A., Hammond-Kosack, K. E., Di Pietro, A., Spanu, P. D., et al. (2012). The top 10 fungal pathogens in molecular plant pathology. *Mol. Plant Pathol.* 13 (4), 414-430. doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2011.00783.x

De Boer, W., Li, X., Meisner, A., and Garbeva, P. (2019). Pathogen suppression by microbial volatile organic compounds in soils. *FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.* 95 (8), fiz105. doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiz105

De Corato, U., Patruno, L., Avella, N., Salimbeni, R., Lacolla, G., Cucci, G., et al. (2020). Soil management under tomato-wheat rotation increases the suppressive response against Fusarium wilt and tomato shoot growth by changing the microbial composition and chemical parameters. *Appl. Soil Ecol.* 154, 103601. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103601

De Lamo, F. J., and Takken, F. L. (2020). Biocontrol by *Fusarium oxysporum* using endophyte-mediated resistance. *Front. Plant Sci.* 11, 37. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00037

Deltour, P., Franca, S. C., Pereira, O. L., Cardoso, I., De Neve, S., Debode, J., et al. (2017). Disease suppressiveness to Fusarium wilt of banana in an agroforestry system: influence of soil characteristics and plant community. *Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.* 239, 173-181. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.01.018

Desjardins, A. E. (2006). *Fusarium mycotoxins: chemistry, genetics, and biology* (St Paul, MN, USA: APS Press).

Dhanti, K. R., Widiastuti, A., and Joko, T. (2017). "Detection of mycotoxin-encoding genes in *Fusarium* spp. isolated from maize kernels in Indonesia," in *Proceeding of the 1st International Conference on Tropical Agriculture, Cham (Switzerland: Springer International Publishing)*. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-60363-6_11

Dita, M., Barquero, M., Heck, D., Mizubuti, E. S. G., and Staver, C. P. (2018). Fusarium wilt of banana: Current knowledge on epidemiology and research needs toward sustainable disease management. *Front. Plant Sci.* 9. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01468

Dominguez, J., Negrín, M. A., and Rodriguez, C. M. (1996). Soil chemical characteristics in relation to Fusarium wilts in banana crops of Gran Canaria Island (Spain). *Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.* 27, 2649-2662. doi: 10.1080/00103629609369729

Du, S., Trivedi, P., Wei, Z., Feng, J., Hu, H. W., Bi, L., et al. (2022). The proportion of soil-borne fungal pathogens increases with elevated organic carbon in agricultural soils. *mSystems* 7, e01337-e01321. doi: 10.1128/m Systems.01337-21

Duijf, B. J., Gianinazzi-Pearson, V., and Lemanceau, P. (1997). Involvement of the outer membrane lipopolysaccharides in the endophytic colonization of tomato roots by biocontrol *Pseudomonas fluorescens* strain WCS417r. *New Phytol.* 135, 325-334. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.1997.00646.x

Duijf, B. J., Pouhair, D., Olivain, C., Alabouvette, C., and Lemanceau, P. (1998). Implication of systemic induced resistance in the suppression of Fusarium wilt of tomato by *Pseudomonas fluorescens* WCS417r and by nonpathogenic *Fusarium oxysporum* Fo47. *Eur. J. Plant Pathol.* 104, 903-910. doi: 10.1023/A:1008626212305

Dundore-Arias, J. P., Castle, S. C., Felice, L., Dill-Macky, R., and Kinkel, L. L. (2020). Carbon amendments influence composition and functional capacities of indigenous soil microbiomes. *Front. Mol. Biosci.* 6. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2019.00151

Edel-Hermann, V., and Lecomte, C. (2019). Current status of *Fusarium oxysporum* formae species and races. *Phytopathology* 109 (4), 512-530. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-08-18-0320-RVW

Elhassan, A., El-Tilib, A., H.S., I., and Awadelkarim, A. (2010). Effect of phosphorus fertilizer treatments on incidence of Fusarium root-rot/wilt disease complex, and on yield components of lupine, chickpea and lentil crops. *Arab Univ J Agric Sci.* 18, 193-202. doi: 10.21608/ajs.2010.14989

Eparvier, A., and Alabouvette, C. (1994). Use of ELISA and GUS-transformed strains to study competition between pathogenic and non-pathogenic *Fusarium* oxysporum for root colonization. *Biocontrol Sci. Technol.* 4, 35-47. doi: 10.1080/09583159409355310

Evans, M. L., Hollaway, G. J., Dennis, J. I., Correll, R., and Wallwork, H. (2010). Crop sequence as a tool for managing populations of *Fusarium pseudograminearum* and *F. culmorum* in South-Eastern Australia. *Australas. Plant Pathol.* 39, 376-382. doi: 10.1071/AP0902

Fan, H., He, P., Xu, S., Li, S., Wang, Y., Zhang, W., et al. (2023). Banana disease-suppressive soil drives *Bacillus* assembled to defense Fusarium wilt of banana. *Front. Microbiol.* 14, 1211301. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1211301

Fang, X., You, M. P., and Barbetti, M. J. (2012). Reduced severity and impact of Fusarium wilt on strawberry by manipulation of soil pH, soil organic amendments and crop rotation. *Eur. J. Plant Pathol.* 134, 619-629. doi: 10.1007/s10658-012-0042-1

Fatima, S., and Anjum, T. (2017). Identification of a potential ISR determinant from *Pseudomonas aeruginosa* PM12 against Fusarium wilt in tomato. *Front. Plant Sci.* 8. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00848

Ferrocino, I., Chitarra, W., Pugliese, M., Gilardi, G., Gullino, M. L., and Garibaldi, A. (2013). Effect of elevated atmospheric CO₂ and temperature on disease severity of *Fusarium oxysporum* f.sp. *lactucae* on lettuce plants. *Appl. Soil Ecol.* 72, 1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.05.015

Fu, L., Ruan, Y., Tao, C., Li, R., and Shen, Q. (2016). Continuous application of bioorganic fertilizer induced resilient culturable bacteria community associated with banana Fusarium wilt suppression. *Sci. Rep.* 6, 27731. doi: 10.1038/srep27731

Fuchs, J.-G., Moënne-Locozco, Y., and Défago, G. (1997). Nonpathogenic *Fusarium oxysporum* strain Fo47 induces resistance to Fusarium wilt in tomato. *Plant Dis.* 81, 492-496. doi: 10.1094/PDIS.1997.81.5.492

Fuchs, J.-G., Moënne-Locozco, Y., and Défago, G. (1999). Ability of nonpathogenic *Fusarium oxysporum* Fo47 to protect tomato against Fusarium wilt. *Biol. Control.* 14, 105-110. doi: 10.1006/bcon.1998.0664

Gai, X., Dong, H., Wang, S., Liu, B., Zhang, Z., Li, X., et al. (2018). Infection cycle of maize stalk rot and ear rot caused by *Fusarium verticillioides*. *PloS One* 13, e0201588. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201588

Galletti, S., Paris, R., and Cianchetta, S. (2020). Selected isolates of *Trichoderma gamsii* induce different pathways of systemic resistance in maize upon *Fusarium verticillioides* challenge. *Microbiol. Res.* 233, 126406. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2019.126406

Garbeva, P., Hol, W. H. G., Termorshuizen, A. J., Kowalchuk, G. A., and de Boer, W. (2011). Fungistasis and general soil biostasis - A new synthesis. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 43, 469-477. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.11.020

Garbeva, P., van Veen, J. A., and van Elsas, J. D. (2004). Microbial diversity in soil: selection microbial populations by plant and soil type and implications for disease suppressiveness. *Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.* 42, 243-270. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.42.012604.135455

Garibaldi, A., Dalla, G. C., Della, G. C., and D'Aquila, F. (1983). Osservazioni su terreni repressivi nei confronti di *Fusarium oxysporum* f. sp. *dianthi* (Prill. et Del.) Synsd. et Hans. *Riv. Ortoflorettricoltura Italia* 67, 251-259.

Gatch, E. W., and du Toit, L. J. (2017). Limestone-mediated suppression of Fusarium wilt in spinach seed crops. *Plant Dis.* 101, 81-94. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-04-16-0423-RE

Geiser, D. M., Aoki, T., Bacon, C. W., Baker, S. E., Bhattacharyya, M. K., Brandt, M. E., et al. (2013). One fungus, one name: Defining the genus *Fusarium* in a scientifically robust way that preserves longstanding use. *Phytopathology* 103, 400-408. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-07-12-0150-LE

Gómez Expósito, R., de Bruijn, I., Postma, J., and Raaijmakers, J. M. (2017). Current insights into the role of rhizosphere bacteria in disease suppressive soils. *Front. Microbiol.* 8. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02529

Goswami, R. S., and Kistler, H. C. (2004). Heading for disaster: *Fusarium graminearum* on cereal crops. *Mol. Plant Pathol.* 5, 515-525. doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2004.00252.x

Gouy, M., Guindon, S., and Gascuel, O. (2010). SeaView version 4: A multiplatform graphical user interface for sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree building. *Mol. Biol. Evol.* 27, 221-224. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msp259

Govaerts, B., Mezzalama, M., Sayre, K. D., Crossa, J., Lichter, K., Troch, V., et al. (2008). Long-term consequences of tillage, residue management, and crop rotation on selected soil micro-flora groups in the subtropical highlands. *Appl. Soil Ecol.* 38, 197-210. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.10.009

Gruet, C., Alaoui, M., Gerin, F., Prigent-Combaret, C., Börner, A., Muller, D., et al. (2023). Genomic content of wheat has a higher influence than plant domestication status on the ability to interact with *Pseudomonas* plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. *Plant Cell Environ.* 46, 3933-3948. doi: 10.1111/pce.14698

Gu, Q., Yang, Y., Yuan, Q., Shi, G., Wu, L., Lou, Z., et al. (2017). Bacillomycin D produced by *Bacillus amyloliquefaciens* is involved in the antagonistic interaction with the plant-pathogenic fungus *Fusarium graminearum*. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* 83, e01075-e01017. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01075-17

He, J., Boland, G. J., and Zhou, T. (2009). Concurrent selection for microbial suppression of *Fusarium graminearum*, Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol in wheat. *J. Appl. Microbiol.* 106, 1805-1817. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04147.x

Herron, D. A., Wingfield, M. J., Wingfield, B. D., Rodas, C. A., Marincowitz, S., and Steenkamp, E. T. (2015). Novel taxa in the *Fusarium fujikuroi* species complex from *Pinus* spp. *Stud. Mycol.* 80, 131-150. doi: 10.1016/j.smyco.2014.12.001
Höper, H., Steinberg, C., and Alabouvette, C. (1995). Involvement of clay type and pH in the mechanisms of soil suppressiveness to Fusarium wilt of flax. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* **27**, 955–967. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(94)00238-V

Husaini, A. M., Sakina, A., and Cambay, S. R. (2018). Host-pathogen interaction in *Fusarium oxysporum* infections: Where do we stand? *Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact.* **31**, 889–898. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-12-17-0302-CR

Ittu, M., Hagima, I., Moraru, I., and Raducanu, F. (1995). Reaction of some wheat and triticale genotypes to toxins, culture filtrates and cultures of *Fusarium. In vivo* screening and the relation between results obtained in *vivo* and in *vitro*. *Theor. Appl. Genet.* **27** (1), 1–13.

Janvier, C., Villeneuve, F., Alabouvette, C., Edel-Hermann, V., Mateille, T., and Steinberg, C. (2007). Soil health through soil disease suppression: Which strategy from descriptors to indicators? *Soil Biol. Biochem.* **39**, 1–23. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.07.001

Jard, G., Liboz, T., Mathieu, F., Guyonvarch, A., and Lebrihi, A. (2011). Review of mycotoxin reduction in food and feed: From prevention in the field to detoxification by adsorption or transformation. *Food Addit. Contam.* **28**, 1590–1609. doi: 10.1080/19440049.2011.595377

Jeffries, P. (1995). Biology and ecology of mycoparasitism. *Can. J. Bot.* **73**, 1284–1290. doi: 10.1139/b95-389

Jia, L.-J., Tang, H.-Y., Wang, W.-Q., Yuan, T.-L., Wei, W.-Q., Pang, B., et al. (2019). A linear nonribosomal octapeptide from *Fusarium graminearum* facilitates cell-to-cell invasion of wheat. *Nat. Commun.* **10**, 922. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-08726-9

Jiang, G., Zhang, Y., Gan, G., Li, W., Wan, W., Jiang, Y., et al. (2022). Exploring rhizo-microbiome transplants as a tool for protective plant-microbiome manipulation. *ISME Commun.* **2**, 1–10. doi: 10.1038/s43705-022-00094-8

Jiménez-Diaz, R. M., Castillo, P., Jiménez-Gasco, M., del, M., Landa, B. B., and Navas-Cortés, J. A. (2015). Fusarium wilt of chickpeas: Biology, ecology and management. *Crop Prot.* **73**, 16–27. doi: 10.1016/j.cropto.2015.02.023

Johnson, E. T., Bowman, M. J., and Dunlap, C. A. (2020). *Brevibacillus fortis* NRS-1210 produces edeines that inhibit the *in vitro* growth of conidia and chlamydospores of the onion pathogen *Fusarium oxysporum* f. sp. *cepae*. *Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek.* **113**, 973–987. doi: 10.1007/s10482-020-01404-7

Keszthelyi, A., Jeney, A., Kerényi, Z., Mendes, O., Waalwijk, C., and Hornok, L. (2007). Tagging target genes of the MAT1-2-1 transcription factor in *Fusarium verticillioides* (*Gibberella fujikuroi* MP-A). *Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek* **91**, 373–391. doi: 10.1007/s10482-006-9123-5

Khan, M. R., and Doohan, F. M. (2009). Bacterium-mediated control of Fusarium Head Blight disease of wheat and barley and associated mycotoxin contamination of grain. *Biol. Control.* **48**, 42–47. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.08.015

Khan, M. R., Fischer, S., Egan, D., and Doohan, F. M. (2006). Biological control of Fusarium seedling blight disease of wheat and barley. *Phytopathology* **96**, 386–394. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-96-0386

Khan, N., Martínez-Hidalgo, P., Ice, T. A., Maymon, M., Humm, E. A., Nejat, N., et al. (2018). Antifungal activity of *Bacillus* species against *Fusarium* and analysis of the potential mechanisms used in biocontrol. *Front. Microbiol.* **9**, 2363. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02363

Khan, N., Maymon, M., and Hirsch, A. (2017). Combating *Fusarium* infection using *Bacillus*-based antimicrobials. *Microorganisms* **5**, 75. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms5040075

Khemir, E., Samira, C., Moretti, A., Gharbi, M. S., Allagui, M. B., and Gargouri, S. (2020). Impacts of previous crops on inoculum of *Fusarium culmorum* in soil, and development of foot and root rot of durum wheat in Tunisia. *Phytopathol. Mediterr.* **59**, 187–201. doi: 10.36253/phyto-10827

Kim, Y.-T., Monkhung, S., Lee, Y. S., and Kim, K. Y. (2019). Effects of *Lysobacter* *antibioticus* HS124, an effective biocontrol agent against *Fusarium graminearum*, on crown rot disease and growth promotion of wheat. *Can. J. Microbiol.* **65**, 904–912. doi: 10.1139/cjm-2019-0285

Klein, E., Ofek, M., Katan, J., Minz, D., and Gamliel, A. (2013). Soil suppressiveness to *Fusarium* disease: Shifts in root microbiome associated with reduction of pathogen root colonization. *Phytopathology* **103**, 23–33. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-12-11-0349

Kloepper, J. W., Leong, J., Teintze, M., and Schroth, M. N. (1980). *Pseudomonas* siderophores: A mechanism explaining disease-suppressive soils. *Curr. Microbiol.* **4**, 317–320. doi: 10.1007/BF02602840

Knudsen, I. M. B., Debosz, K., Hockenhull, J., Jensen, D. F., and Elmholt, S. (1999). Suppressiveness of organically and conventionally managed soils towards brown foot rot of barley. *Appl. Soil Ecol.* **12**, 61–72. doi: 10.1016/s0929-1393(98)00156-5

Kubicek, C. P., Herrera-Estrella, A., Seidl-Seiboth, V., Martinez, D. A., Druzhinina, I. S., Thon, M., et al. (2011). Comparative genome sequence analysis underscores mycoparasitism as the ancestral life style of *Trichoderma*. *Genome Biol.* **12**, 1–15. doi: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-4-r40

Kuć, J. (1995). "Induced systemic resistance — an overview," in *Induced Resistance to Disease in Plants*. Eds. R. Hammerschmidt and J. Kuć (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 169–175. doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-8420-3_8

Kumari, P., and Khanna, V. (2019). Seed bacterization stimulated resistance in chickpea against *Fusarium oxysporum* f. sp. *ciceris*. *Indian Phytopathol.* **72**, 689–697. doi: 10.1007/s42360-019-00163-4

Kurek, E., and Jaroszuk-Ścisel, J. (2003). Rye (*Secale cereale*) growth promotion by *Pseudomonas fluorescens* strains and their interactions with *Fusarium culmorum* under various soil conditions. *Biol. Control.* **26**, 48–56. doi: 10.1016/S1049-9644(02)00115-9

Kyselková, M., Kopecký, J., Frapolli, M., Défago, G., Ságová-Marečková, M., Grundmann, G., et al. (2009). Comparison of rhizobacterial community composition in soil suppressive or conducive to tobacco black root rot disease. *ISME J.* **3**, 1127–1138. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2009.61

Kyselková, M., and Moënne-Loccoz, Y. (2012). "*Pseudomonas* and other microbes in disease-suppressive soils," in *Organic Fertilisation, Soil Quality and Human Health Sustainable Agriculture Reviews*. Ed. E. Lichtfouse (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 93–140. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4113-3_5

Laraba, I., McCormick, S. P., Vaughan, M. M., Geiser, D. M., and O'Donnell, K. (2021). Phylogenetic diversity, trichothecene potential, and pathogenicity within *Fusarium sambucinum* species complex. *PloS One* **16**, e0245037. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245037

Larkin, R. P., Hopkins, D. L., and Martin, F. N. (1993). Ecology of *Fusarium oxysporum* f. sp. *niveum* in soils suppressive and conducive to Fusarium wilt of watermelon. *Phytopathology* **83**, 1105–1116. doi: 10.1094/Phyto-83-1105

Laville, J., Voisard, C., Keel, C., Maurhofer, M., Défago, G., and Haas, D. (1992). Global control in *Pseudomonas fluorescens* mediating antibiotic synthesis and suppression of black root rot of tobacco. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.* **89**, 1562–1566. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.5.1562

Leeman, M., van Pelt, J. A., Den Ouden, F. M., Heinsbroek, M., Bakker, P. A. H. M., and Schippers, B. (1995). Induction of systemic resistance against Fusarium wilt of radish by lipopolysaccharides of *Pseudomonas fluorescens*. *Phytopathology* **85**, 1021–1027. doi: 10.1094/Phyto-85-1021

Legrand, F., Chen, W., Cobo-Diaz, J. F., Picot, A., and Le Floch, G. (2019). Occurrence analysis reveal that biotic and abiotic factors influence soil fungistasis against *Fusarium graminearum*. *FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.* **95**, fiz056. doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiz056

Legrand, F., Picot, A., Cobo-Diaz, J. F., Chen, W., and Le Floch, G. (2017). Challenges facing the biological control strategies for the management of Fusarium Head Blight of cereals caused by *F. graminearum*. *Biol. Control.* **113**, 26–38. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.06.011

Lei, W., Xiao-Ming, W., Rong-Qi, X., and Hong-Jie, L. (2011). Root infection and systematic colonization of DsRed-labeled *Fusarium verticillioides* in maize. *Acta Agron. Sin.* **37**, 793–802. doi: 10.1016/S1875-2780(11)60023-0

Lemanceau, P., and Alabouvette, C. (1991). Biological control of *Fusarium* diseases by fluorescent *Pseudomonas* and non-pathogenic *Fusarium*. *Crop Prot.* **10**, 279–286. doi: 10.1016/0261-2194(91)90006-D

Lemanceau, P., Bakker, P., de Kogel, W., Alabouvette, C., and Schippers, B. (1993). Antagonistic effect of nonpathogenic *Fusarium oxysporum* Fo47 and pseudobactin 358 upon pathogenic *Fusarium oxysporum* f. sp. *dianthi*. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* **59**, 74–82. doi: 10.1128/AEM.59.1.74-82.1993

Lemanceau, P., Blouin, M., Muller, D., and Moënne-Loccoz, Y. (2017). Let the core microbiota be functional. *Trends Plant Sci.* **22**, 583–595. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2017.04.008

Lemmens, M., Haim, K., Lew, H., and Ruckenbauer, P. (2004). The effect of nitrogen fertilization on Fusarium head blight development and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat. *J. Phytopathol.* **152**, 1–8. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0434.2003.00791.x

Leplat, J., Friberg, H., Abid, M., and Steinberg, C. (2013). Survival of *Fusarium graminearum*, the causal agent of Fusarium head blight. A review. *Agron. Sustain. Dev.* **33**, 97–111. doi: 10.1007/s13593-012-0098-5

Leslie, J. F., and Summerell, B. A. (2006). *The Fusarium laboratory manual* (Ames: John Wiley and Sons). doi: 10.1002/9780470278376

Letunic, I., and Bork, P. (2021). Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. *Nucleic Acids Res.* **49**, W293–W296. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab301

Li, Y., and Chen, S. (2019). Fusaricidin produced by *Paenibacillus polymyxa* WLY78 induces systemic resistance against Fusarium wilt of cucumber. *Int. J. Mol. Sci.* **20**, 1–19. doi: 10.3390/ijms20205240

Li, R., Shen, Z., Sun, L., Zhang, R., Fu, L., Deng, X., et al. (2016). Novel soil fumigation method for suppressing cucumber Fusarium wilt disease associated with soil microflora alterations. *Appl. Soil Ecol.* **101**, 28–36. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.01.004

Liu, Y., Zhu, A., Tan, H., Cao, L., and Zhang, R. (2019). Engineering banana endosphere microbiome to improve Fusarium wilt resistance in banana. *Microbiome* **7**, 74. doi: 10.1186/s40168-019-0690-x

Löffler, H. J. M., Cohen, E. B., Oolbekkink, G. T., and Schippers, B. (1986). Nitrite as a factor in the decline of *Fusarium oxysporum* f. sp. *dianthi* in soil supplemented with urea or ammonium chloride. *Neth. J. Plant Pathol.* **92**, 153–162. doi: 10.1007/BF01999797

Logeshwarn, P., Thangaraju, M., and Kandaiah, R. (2011). Antagonistic potential of *Logonacetobacter diazotrophicus* against *Fusarium oxysporum* in sweet potato (*Ipomea batatus*). *Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot.* **44**, 216–223. doi: 10.1080/0323500902952707

López-Diaz, C., Rahjoo, V., Sulyok, M., Ghionna, V., Martin-Vicente, A., Capilla, J., et al. (2018). Fusaric acid contributes to virulence of *Fusarium oxysporum* on plant and mammalian hosts. *Mol. Plant Pathol.* **19**, 440–453. doi: 10.1111/mpp.12536
Louvet, J., Rouxel, F., and Alabouvette, C. (1976). Recherches sur la resistance des sois aux maladies. I. Mise en evidence de la nature microbiobiologique de la resistance d'un sol au developpement de la fusariose vasculaire du melon. *Ann. Phytopathol.* 8, 425-436.

Lv, N., Tao, C., Ou, Y., Wang, J., Deng, X., Liu, H., et al. (2023). Root-associated antagonistic Pseudomonas spp. contribute to soil suppressiveness against banana Fusarium wilt disease of banana. *Microbiol. Spectr.* 11 (2), e0352522. doi: 10.1128/
spectrum.03525-22

Ma, L.-J., Geiser, D. M., Proctor, R. H., Rooney, A. P., O'Donnell, K., Trail, F., et al. (2013). *Fusarium pathogenomics*. *Annu. Rev. Microbiol.* 67, 399–416. doi: 10.1146/
annurev-micro-092412-155650

Magotra, S., Trakroo, D., Ganjoo, S., and Vakhlu, J. (2016). "Bacillus-mediated-Induced Systemic Resistance (ISR) against Fusarium corm rot," in *Microbial-mediated Induced Systemic Resistance in Plants*. Eds. D. K. Choudhary and A. Varma (Singapore: Springer International Publishing), 15–22. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-0388-2_2

Maher, M., Prasad, M., and Raviv, M. (2008). "Organic soilless media components", in *Soilless culture, theory and practice*. Ed. L. Raviv (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 459–504. doi: 10.1016/B978-044452975-6.50013-7

Maheshwari, D. K., Saraf, M., and Aeron, A. (2013). *Bacteria in agrobiology: Disease management* (Berlin: Springer International Publishing). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33639-3

Marburger, D. A., Venkateshwaran, M., Conley, S. P., Esker, P. D., Lauer, J. G., and Ané, J. M. (2015). Crop rotation and management effect on *Fusarium* spp. populations. *Crop Sci.* 55, 365–376. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2014.03.0199

Marshall, K. C., and Alexander, M. (1960). Competition between soil bacteria and *Fusarium*. *Plant Soil.* 12, 143–153. doi: 10.1007/BF01377367

Masri, M., Sukmawaty, E., and Amir, A. A. (2021). Antifungal activity of chitinolytic bacteria *Lysinibacillus fusiformis* and *Brevibacillus reuszeri* against the fungal pathogens *Rhizoctonia solani* and *Fusarium oxysporum*. *Microbiol. Indones.* 15, 135–138. doi: 10.5454/mi.15.4.3

Mazurier, S., Corberand, T., Lemanceau, P., and Raaijmakers, J. M. (2009). Phenazine antibiotics produced by fluorescent pseudomonads contribute to natural soil suppressiveness to Fusarium wilt. *ISME J.* 3, 977–991. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2009.33

Mazzola, M. (2002). Mechanisms of natural soil suppressiveness to soilborne diseases. *Antonie van Leeuwenhoek.* 81, 557–564. doi: 10.1023/A:1020557523557

Mendes, R., Kruijt, M., de Bruijn, I., Dekkers, E., van der Voort, M., Schneider, J. H. M., et al. (2011). Deciphering the rhizosphere microbiome for disease-suppressive bacteria. *Science* 332, 1097–1100. doi: 10.1126/science.1203980

Meng, T., Wang, Q., Abbasi, P., and Ma, Y. (2019). Deciphering differences in the chemical and microbial characteristics of healthy and Fusarium wilt-infected watermelon rhizosphere soils. *Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.* 103, 1497–1509. doi: 10.1007/s00253-018-9564-6

Mesterházy, Á. (2002). Role of deoxynivalenol in aggressiveness of *Fusarium graminearum* and *F. culmorum* and in resistance to Fusarium Head Blight. *Eur. J. Plant Pathol.* 108, 675–684. doi: 10.1023/A:1020631114063

Michielse, C. B., and Rep, M. (2009). Pathogen profile update: *Fusarium oxysporum*. *Mol. Plant Pathol.* 10, 311–324. doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2009.00538.x

Mitsuboshi, M., Kioka, Y., Noguchi, K., and Asakawa, S. (2018). Evaluation of suppressiveness of soils exhibiting soil-borne disease suppression after long-term application of organic amendments by the co-cultivation method of pathogenic *Fusarium oxysporum* and indigenous soil microorganisms. *Microbes Environ.* 33, 58–65. doi: 10.1264/jsme2.ME17072

Montalba, R., Arriagada, C., Alvear, M., and Zúñiga, G. E. (2010). Effects of conventional and organic nitrogen fertilizers on soil microbial activity, mycorrhizal colonization, leaf antioxidant content, and Fusarium wilt in highbush blueberry (*Vaccinium corymbosum* L.). *Sci. Hortic.* 125, 775–778. doi: 10.1016/
j.scienta.2010.04.046

Moretti, A., Pascale, M., and Logrieco, A. F. (2018). Mycotoxin risks under a climate change scenario in Europe. *Trends Food Sci. Technol.* 84, 38–40. doi: 10.1016/
j.tifs.2018.03.008

Morimura, H., Ito, M., Yoshida, S., Koitabashi, M., Tsushima, S., Camagna, M., et al. (2020). *In vitro* assessment of biocontrol effects on Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol (DON) accumulation by DON-degrading bacteria. *Toxins* 12 (6), 399. doi: 10.3390/toxins12060399

Mousa, W. K., and Raizada, M. N. (2016). Natural disease control in cereal grains. *Encycl. Food Grains.* 4, 257–263. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-394437-5.00206-0

Munkvold, G. P. (2017). "*Fusarium* species and their associated mycotoxins," in *Mycotoxigenic fungi*. Eds. A. Moretti and A. Susca (New York, NY: Humana Press), 51–106.

Munkvold, G. P., Proctor, R. H., and Moretti, A. (2021). Mycotoxin production in *Fusarium* according to contemporary species concepts. *Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.* 59 373–402. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-020620-102825

Murillo-Williams, A., and Munkvold, G. P. (2008). Systemic infection by *Fusarium verticillioides* in maize plants grown under three temperature regimes. *Plant Dis.* 92, 1695–1700. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-92-12-1695

Nazari, L., Pattori, E., Manstretta, V., Terzi, V., Morcia, C., Somma, S., et al. (2018). Effect of temperature on growth, wheat head infection, and nivalenol production by *Fusarium poae*. *Food Microbiol.* 76, 83–90. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2018.04.015

Nelson, P. E., Dignani, M. C., and Anaissie, E. J. (1994). Taxonomy, biology, and clinical aspects of *Fusarium* species. *Clin. Microbiol. Rev.* 7, 479–504. doi: 10.1128/
CMR.7.4.479

Nešić, K., Ivanović, S., and Nešić, V. (2014). Fusarial toxins: secondary metabolites of *Fusarium* fungi. *Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.* 228, 101–120. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-
01619-1_5

Nguvo, K. J., and Gao, X. (2019). Weapons hidden underneath: biocontrol agents and their potentials to activate plant induced systemic resistance in controlling crop *Fusarium* diseases. *J. Plant Dis. Prot.* 126, 177–190. doi: 10.1007/s41348-019-00222-y

Nguyen, P.-A., Strub, C., Durand, N., Alter, P., Fontana, A., and Schorr-Galindo, S. (2018). Biocontrol of *Fusarium verticillioides* using organic amendments and their actinomycete isolates. *Biol. Control.* 118, 55–66. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.12.006

Nisrina, L., Effendi, Y., and Pancoro, A. (2021). Revealing the role of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria in suppressive soils against *Fusarium oxysporum* f.sp. cubense based on metagenomic analysis. *Heliyon* 7, e07636. doi: 10.1016/
j.heliyon.2021.e07636

O'Donnell, K., Rooney, A. P., Proctor, R. H., Brown, D. W., McCormick, S. P., Ward, T. J., et al. (2013). Phylogenetic analyses of *RPB1* and *RPB2* support a middle Cretaceous origin for a clade comprising all agriculturally and medically important fusaria. *Fungal Genet. Biol.* 52, 20–31. doi: 10.1016/j.fgb.2012.12.004

O'Donnell, K., Ward, T. J., Robert, V. A. R. G., Crous, P. W., Geiser, D. M., and Kang, S. (2015). DNA sequence-based identification of *Fusarium*: current status and future directions. *Phytoparasitica* 43, 583–595. doi: 10.1007/s12600-015-0484-z

Oren, L., Ezrati, S., Cohen, D., and Sharon, A. (2003). Early Events in the *Fusarium verticillioides* - maize interaction characterized by using a green fluorescent protein-expressing transgenic isolate. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* 69, 1695–1701. doi: 10.1128/
AEM.69.3.1695-1701.2003

Orr, R., and Nelson, P. N. (2018). Impacts of soil abiotic attributes on Fusarium wilt, focusing on bananas. *Appl. Soil Ecol.* 132, 20–33. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2018.06.019

Ossowicki, A., Tracanna, V., Petrus, M. L. C., van Wezel, G., Raaijmakers, J. M., Medema, M. H., et al. (2020). Microbial and volatile profiling of soils suppressive to *Fusarium culmorum* of wheat. *Proc. Biol. Sci.* 287, 20192527. doi: 10.1098/
rspb.2019.2527

Pal, K. K., and McSpadden Gardener, B. (2006). Biological control of plant pathogens. *Plant Health Instruct.* 2, 1117–1142. doi: 10.1094/PHI-A-2006-1117-02

Pal, K. K., Tilak, K. V. B. R., Saxena, A. K., Dey, R., and Singh, C. S. (2001). Suppression of maize root diseases caused by *Macrophomina phaseolina*, *Fusarium moniliforme* and *Fusarium graminearum* by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. *Microbiol. Res.* 156, 209–223. doi: 10.1078/0944-5013-00103

Palazzini, J. M., Ramirez, M. L., Torres, A. M., and Chulze, S. N. (2007). Potential biocontrol agents for Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol production in wheat. *Crop Prot.* 26, 1702–1710. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2007.03.004

Palmieri, D., Segorbe, D., López-Berges, M. S., de Curtis, F., Lima, G., Di Pietro, A., et al. (2023). Alkaline pH, low iron availability, poor nitrogen sources and CWI MAPK signaling are associated with increased fusaric acid production in *Fusarium oxysporum*. *Toxins* 15 (1), 50. doi: 10.3390/toxins15010050

Pélissier, R., Violle, C., and Morel, J.-B. (2021). Plant immunity: Good fences make good neighbors? *Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.* 62, 102045. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2021.102045

Pellan, L., Durand, N., Martinez, V., Fontana, A., Schorr-Galindo, S., and Strub, C. (2020). Commercial biocontrol agents reveal contrasting comportments against two mycotoxigenic fungi in cereals: *Fusarium graminearum* and *Fusarium verticillioides*. *Toxins* 12, 152. doi: 10.3390/toxins12030152

Peng, H. X., Sivasithamparam, K., and Turner, D. W. (1999). Chlamydospore germination and Fusarium wilt of banana plantlets in suppressive and conducive soils are affected by physical and chemical factors. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 31, 1363–1374. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00045-0

Pereyra, S. A., Dill-Macky, R., and Sims, A. L. (2004). Survival and inoculum production of *Gibberella zeae* in wheat residue. *Plant Dis.* 88, 724–730. doi: 10.1094/
PDIS.2004.88.7.724

Petti, C., Khan, M., and Doohan, F. (2010). Lipid transfer proteins and protease inhibitors as key factors in the priming of barley responses to Fusarium head blight disease by a biocontrol strain of *Pseudomonas fluorescens*. *Funct. Integr. Genomics* 10, 619–627. doi: 10.1007/s10142-010-0177-0

Pfordt, A., Ramos Romero, L., Schiwek, S., Karlovsky, P., and von Tiedemann, A. (2020). Impact of environmental conditions and agronomic practices on the prevalence of *Fusarium* species associated with ear-and stalk rot in maize. *Pathogens* 9, 236. doi: 10.3390/pathogens9030236

Pieterse, C. M. J., Zamioudis, C., Berendsen, R. L., Weller, D. M., Van Wees, S. C. M., and Bakker, P. A. H. M. (2014). Induced systemic resistance by beneficial microbes. *Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.* 52, 347–375. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102340

Pisi, A., Cesari, A., Zakrisson, E., Filippini, G., Roberti, R., and Mantovani, W. (2001). SEM investigation about hyphal relationships between some antagonistic fungi against *Fusarium* spp. foot rot pathogen of wheat. *Phytopathol. Mediterr.* 40, 37–44. doi: 10.14601/PHYTOPATHOL_MEDITERR-1588

Podolska, G., Bryła, M., Sułek, A., Waśkiewicz, A., Szymczyk, K., and Jędrzejczak, R. (2017). Influence of the cultivar and nitrogen fertilisation level on the mycotoxin contamination in winter wheat. *Qual. Assur. Saf. Crops Foods.* 9, 451–461. doi: 10.3920/
QAS2016.1064
Qualhato, T. F., Lopes, F. A. C., Steindorff, A. S., Brandão, R. S., Jesuino, R. S. A., and Ulhoa, C. J. (2013). Mycoparasitism studies of *Trichoderma* species against three phytopathogenic fungi: evaluation of antagonism and hydrolytic enzyme production. *Biotechnol. Lett.* 35, 1461-1468. doi: 10.1007/s10529-013-1225-3

Raaijmakers, J., Leeman, M., van Oorschot, M., van der Sluis, I., Schippers, B., and Bakker, P. (1995). Dose-response relationships in biological control of Fusarium wilt of radish by *Pseudomonas* spp. *Phytopathology* 85, 1075-1081. doi: 10.1094/Phyto-85-1075

Raaijmakers, J. M., Paulitz, T. C., Steinberg, C., Alabouvette, C., and Moënne-Loccoz, Y. (2009). The rhizosphere: a playground and battlefield for soilborne pathogens and beneficial microorganisms. *Plant Soil.* 321, 341–361. doi: 10.1007/s11104-008-9568-6

Rana, A., Sahgal, M., and Johri, B. N. (2017). "*Fusarium oxysporum*: genomics, diversity and plant-host interaction," in *Developments in Fungal Biology and Applied Mycology*. Eds. T. Satyanarayana, S. Deshmukh and B. Johri (Singapore: Springer International Publishing), 159-199. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-4768-8_10

Ranzi, C., Camera, J. N., and Deuner, C. C. (2017). Influence of continuous cropping on corn and soybean pathogens. *Summa Phytopathol.* 43, 14-19. doi: 10.1590/0100-5405/2150

Rasmussen, P. H., Knudsen, I. M. B., Elmholt, S., and Jensen, D. F. (2002). Relationship between soil cellulolytic activity and suppression of seedling blight of barley in arable soils. *Appl. Soil Ecol.* 19, 91-96. doi: 10.1016/S0929-1393(01)00177-9

Raza, W., Yuan, J., Ling, N., Huang, Q., and Shen, Q. (2015). Production of volatile organic compounds by an antagonistic strain *Paenibacillus polymyxa* WR-2 in the presence of root exudates and organic fertilizer and their antifungal activity against *Fusarium oxysporum* f. sp. *niveum*. *Biol. Control.* 80, 89-95. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2014.09.004

Redkar, A., Gimenez Ibanez, S., Sabale, M., Zechmann, B., Solano, R., and Di Pietro, A. (2022a). *Marchantia polymorpha* model reveals conserved infection mechanisms in the vascular wall fungal pathogen *Fusarium oxysporum*. *New Phytol.* 234, 227-241. doi: 10.1111/nph.17909

Redkar, A., Sabale, M., Zuccaro, A., and Di Pietro, A. (2022b). Determinants of endophytic and pathogenic lifestyle in root colonizing fungi. *Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.* 67, 10226. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2022.102226

Reino, J. L., Guerrero, R. F., Hernández-Galán, R., and Collado, I. G. (2008). Secondary metabolites from species of the biocontrol agent *Trichoderma*. *Phytochem. Rev.* 7, 89-123. doi: 10.1007/s11101-006-9032-2

Reis, T. A., Oliveira, T. D., Zorzete, P., Faria, P., and Corrèa, B. (2020). A non-toxigenic *Aspergillus flavus* strain prevents the spreading of *Fusarium verticillioides* and fumonisins in maize. *Toxicon* 181, 6-8. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2020.04.091

Reyes Gaige, A., Todd, T., and Stack, J. P. (2020). Interspecific competition for colonization of maize plants between *Fusarium proliferatum* and *Fusarium verticillioides*. *Plant Dis.* 104, 2102-2110. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-09-19-1964-RE

Ristić, D. (2012). Characterization of Fusarium species pathogen for sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] in Serbia and genotype susceptibility. [dissertation] (Belgrade: University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture). doi: 10.2298/BG20121008RISTIC

Rizaludin, M. S., Stopnisek, N., Raaijmakers, J. M., and Garbeva, P. (2021). The chemistry of stress: Understanding the 'cry for help' of plant roots. *Metabolites* 11, 357. doi: 10.3390/metabo11060357

Rolfe, S. A., Griffiths, J., and Ton, J. (2019). Crying out for help with root exudates: adaptive mechanisms by which stressed plants assemble health-promoting soil microbes. *Curr. Opin. Microbiol.* 49, 73-82. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2019.10.003

Rosenzweig, N., Tiedje, J. M., Quensen, J. F., Meng, Q., and Hao, J. J. (2012). Microbial communities associated with potato common scab-suppressive soil determined by pyrosequencing analyses. *Plant Dis.* 96, 718-725. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-07-11-0571

Rouxel, F., and Sedra, H. (1989). Resistance des sols aux maladies. Mise en evidence de la resistance d'un sol de la palmeraie de Marrakech aux fusarioses vasculaires. *Al Awamia*, 66, 35-54.

Sajeena, A., Nair, D. S., and Sreepavan, K. (2020). Non-pathogenic *Fusarium oxysporum* as a biocontrol agent. *Indian Phytopathol.* 73, 177-183. doi: 10.1007/s42360-020-00226-x

Sánchez-Canizares, C., Jorrín, B., Poole, P. S., and Tkacz, A. (2017). Understanding the holobiont: the interdependence of plants and their microbiome. *Curr. Opin. Microbiol.* 38, 188-196. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2017.07.001

Sanguin, H., Sarniguet, A., Gazengel, K., Moënne-Loccoz, Y., and Grundmann, G. L. (2009). Rhizosphere bacterial communities associated with disease suppressiveness stages of take-all decline in wheat monoculture. *New Phytol.* 184, 694-707. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03010.x

Saravanakumar, K., Li, Y., Yu, C., Wang, Q.-Q., Wang, M., Sun, J., et al. (2017). Effect of *Trichoderma harzianum* on maize rhizosphere microbiome and biocontrol of Fusarium stalk rot. *Sci. Rep.* 7, 1771. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01680-w

Sautour, M., Edel-Hermann, V., Steinberg, C., Sixt, N., Laurent, J., Dalle, F., et al. (2012). *Fusarium* species recovered from the water distribution system of a French university hospital. *Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health* 215, 286-292. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2011.11.003

Scher, F. M., and Baker, R. (1980). Mechanism of biological control in a *Fusarium*-suppressive soil. *Phytopathology* 70, 412-417. doi: 10.1094/Phyto-70-412

Schlatter, D., Kinkel, L., Thomashow, L., Weller, D., and Paulitz, T. (2017). Disease suppressive soils: New insights from the soil microbiome. *Phytopathology* 107, 1284-1297. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-03-17-0111-RVW

Schmale, D. G., and Bergstrom, G. C. (2003). *Fusarium* head blight in wheat. *Plant Health Instr.* doi: 10.1094/PHI-I-2003-0612-01

Schreiner, K., Hagn, A., Kyselková, M., Moënne-Loccoz, Y., Welzl, G., Munch, J. C., et al. (2010). Comparison of barley succession and take-all disease as environmental factors shaping the rhizobacterial community during take-all decline. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* 76, 4703-4712. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00481-10

Scott, J. C., Gordon, T. R., Shaw, D. V., and Koike, S. T. (2009). Effect of temperature on severity of Fusarium wilt of lettuce caused by *Fusarium oxysporum* f. sp. *lactucae*. *Plant Dis.* 94, 13-17. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-94-1-0013

Scott, P., Strange, R., Korsten, L., and Gullino, M. L. (2021). *Plant Diseases and Food Security in the 21st Century* (The Netherlands: Springer International Publishing).

Segarra, G., Casanova, E., Avilés, M., and Trillas, I. (2010). *Trichoderma asperellum* strain T34 controls Fusarium wilt disease in tomato plants in soilless culture through competition for iron. *Microb. Ecol.* 59, 141-149. doi: 10.1007/s00248-009-9545-5

Senatore, M. T., Ward, T. J., Cappelletti, E., Beccari, G., McCormick, S. P., Busman, M., et al. (2021). Species diversity and mycotoxin production by members of the Fusarium tricinum species complex associated with Fusarium head blight of wheat and barley in Italy. *J. Food Microbiol.* 358, 109298. doi: 10.1016/j.jifoodmicro.2021.109298

Senechkin, I. V., van Overbeek, L. S., and van Bruggen, A. H. C. (2014). Greater Fusarium wilt suppression after complex than after simple organic amendments as affected by soil pH, total carbon and ammonia-oxidizing bacteria. *Appl. Soil Ecol.* 73, 148-155. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.09.003

Shen, Z., Ruan, Y., Wang, B., Zhong, S., Su, L., Li, R., et al. (2015a). Effect of biofertilizer for suppressing Fusarium wilt disease of banana as well as enhancing microbial and chemical properties of soil under greenhouse trial. *Appl. Soil Ecol.* 93, 111-119. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.04.013

Shen, Z., Ruan, Y., Xue, C., Zhong, S., Li, R., and Shen, Q. (2015b). Soils naturally suppressive to banana Fusarium wilt disease harbor unique bacterial communities. *Plant Soil.* 393, 21-33. doi: 10.1007/s11104-015-2474-9

Shen, Z., Thomashow, L. S., Ou, Y., Tao, C., Wang, J., Xiong, W., et al. (2022). Shared core microbiome and functionality of key taxa suppressive to banana Fusarium wilt. *Research 2022*, 9818073. doi: 10.34133/2022/9818073

Shi, C., Yan, P., Li, J., Wu, H., Li, Q., and Guan, S. (2014). Biocontrol of *Fusarium graminearum* growth and deoxynivalenol production in wheat kernels with bacterial antagonists. *Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health* 11, 1094-1105. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110101094

Shipton, P. J., Cook, R. J., and Sitton, J. W. (1973). Occurrence and transfer of a biological factor in soil that suppresses take-all of wheat in Eastern Washington. *Phytopathology* 63, 511-517. doi: 10.1094/Phyto-63-511

Siegel-Hertz, K., Edel-Hermann, V., Chapelle, E., Terrat, S., Raaijmakers, J. M., and Steinberg, C. (2018). Comparative microbiome analysis of a Fusarium wilt suppressive soil and a Fusarium wilt conducive soil from the Châteaurenard region. *Front. Microbiol.* 9, 568. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00568

Singh, R. K., Singh, P., Guo, D.-J., Sharma, A., Li, D.-P., Li, X., et al. (2021). Root-derived endophytic diazotrophic bacteria *Pantoea cypripedii* AF1 and *Kosakonia arachidis* EF1 promote nitrogen assimilation and growth in sugarcane. *Front. Microbiol.* 12. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.774707

Šišić, A., Bačanović-Šišić, J., Al-Hatmi, A. M. S., Karlovsky, P., Ahmed, S. A., Maier, W., et al. (2018). The “*forma specialis*” issue in *Fusarium*: A case study in *Fusarium solani* f. sp. pisi. *Sci. Rep.* 8, 1252. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-19779-z

Smith, S. N. (2007). An overview of ecological and habitat aspects in the genus *Fusarium* with special emphasis on the soil-borne pathogenic forms. *Plant Pathol. Bull.* 16, 97-120.

Smith, S. N., and Snyder, W. C. (1971). Relationship of inoculum density and soil types to severity of Fusarium wilt of sweet potato. *Phytopathology* 61, 1049-1051. doi: 10.1094/Phyto-61-1049

Sneh, B., Dupler, M., Elad, Y., and Baker, R. (1984). Chlamydospore germination of *Fusarium oxysporum* f. sp. *cucumerinum* as affected by fluorescent and lytic bacteria from a Fusarium-suppressive soil. *Phytopathology* 74 (9), 1115-1124. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-74-1115

Spiegel, Y., Netzer, D., and Kafkafi, U. (1987). The role of calcium nutrition on Fusarium-wilt syndrome in muskmelon. *J. Phytopathol.* 118, 220-226. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0434.1987.tb00451.x

Steinkellner, S., and Langer, I. (2004). Impact of tillage on the incidence of *Fusarium* spp. in soil. *Plant Soil.* 267, 13-22. doi: 10.1007/s11104-005-2574-z

Stotzky, G., and Torrence Martin, R. (1963). Soil mineralogy in relation to the spread of Fusarium wilt of banana in Central America. *Plant Soil.* 18, 317-337. doi: 10.1007/BF01347232

Stover, R. H. (1956). Studies on Fusarium wilt of bananas: I. The behavior of *F. oxysporum* f. cubense in different soils. *Can. J. Bot.* 34, 927-942. doi: 10.1139/b56-073

Sturz, A. V., and Carter, M. R. (1995). Conservation tillage systems, fungal complexes and disease development in soybean and barley rhizospheres in Prince Edward Island. *Soil Tillage Res.* 34, 225-238. doi: 10.1016/0167-1987(95)00469-9
Stutz, E. W., Défago, G., and Kern, H. (1986). Naturally occurring fluorescent pseudomonads involved in suppression of black root rot of tobacco. *Phytopathology* 76, 181–185. doi: 10.1094/Phyto-76-181

Summerell, B. A. (2019). Resolving *Fusarium*: Current status of the genus. *Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.* 57, 323–339. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-082718-100204

Sundaramoorthy, S., Raguchander, T., Ragupathi, N., and Samiyappan, R. (2012). Combinatorial effect of endophytic and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria against wilt disease of *Capsicum annum* L. caused by *Fusarium solani*. *Biol. Control.* 60, 59–67. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2011.10.002

Szczech, M. M. (1999). Suppressiveness of vermicompost against Fusarium wilt of tomato. *J. Phytopathol.* 147, 155–161. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0434.1999.147003155.x

Tamietti, G., and Alabouvette, C. (1986). Résistance des sols aux maladies : XIII - Rôle des *Fusarium oxysporum* non pathogènes dans les mécanismes de résistance d'un sol de Noirmoutier aux fusarioses vasculaires. *Agronomie* 6, 541–548. doi: 10.1051/agro:19860606

Tamietti, G., Ferraris, L., Matta, A., and Abbattista Gentile, I. (1993). Physiological responses of tomato plants grown in Fusarium suppressive soil. *J. Phytopathol.* 138, 66–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0434.1993.tb01361.x

Tamietti, G., and Matta, A. (1984). "*Fusarium lycopersici*-suppressive properties in the soil of Albenga (Italy): preliminary observations," in *Proc. 6th Congr. Union Phytopathol*, Mediterr, Cairo. 129–131.

Tamietti, G., and Pramotton, R. (1990). La réceptivité des sols aux fusarioses vasculaires : rapports entre résistance et microflore autochton avec référence particulière aux *Fusarium* non pathogènes. *Agronomie* 10, 69–76. doi: 10.1051/agro:19900109

Tang, T., Sun, X., Liu, Q., Dong, Y., and Zha, M. (2023). Treatment with organic manure inoculated with a biocontrol agent induces soil bacterial communities to inhibit tomato Fusarium wilt disease. *Front. Microbiol.* 13, 1006878. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1006878

Tao, C., Li, R., Xiong, W., Shen, Z., Liu, S., Wang, B., et al. (2020). Bio-organic fertilizers stimulate indigenous soil *Pseudomonas* populations to enhance plant disease suppression. *Microbiome* 8, 137. doi: 10.1186/s40168-020-00892-z

Tari, P. H., and Anderson, A. J. (1988). Fusarium wilt suppression and agglutinability of *Pseudomonas putida*. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* 54, 2037–2041. doi: 10.1128/aem.54.8.2037-2041.1988

Termorshuizen, A. J., van Rijn, E., van der Gaag, D. J., Alabouvette, C., Chen, Y., Lagerlöf, J., et al. (2006). Suppressiveness of 18 composts against 7 pathosystems: Variability in pathogen response. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 38, 2461–2477. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.03.002

Theron, J. S., Johannes van Coller, G., Rose, L. J., Labuschagne, J., and Swanepoel, P. A. (2023). The effect of crop rotation and tillage practice on Fusarium crown rot and agronomic parameters of wheat in South Africa. *Crop Prot.* 166, 106175. doi: 10.1016/j.croprot.2022.106175

Thrane, U. (2014). "Fusarium," in *Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology*. Eds. C. A. Batt and M. L. Tortorello (Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier), 76–81. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384730-0-00141-5

Tian, Y., Tan, Y., Yan, Z., Liao, Y., Chen, J., de Boevre, M., et al. (2018). Antagonistic and detoxification potentials of *Trichoderma* isolates for control of zearalenone (ZEN) producing *Fusarium graminearum*. *Front. Microbiol.* 8. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02710

Tkacz, A., Cheema, J., Chandra, G., Grant, A., and Poole, P. S. (2015). Stability and succession of the rhizosphere microbiota depends upon plant type and soil composition. *ISME J.* 9, 2349–2359. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2015.41

Tkacz, A., and Poole, P. S. (2015). Role of root microbiota in plant productivity. *J. Exp. Bot.* 66, 2167–2175. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv157

Torbati, M., Arzanlou, M., and da Silva Santos, A. C. (2021). Fungicolous *Fusarium* species: Ecology, diversity, isolation, and identification. *Curr. Microbiol.* 78, 2850–2859. doi: 10.1007/s00284-021-02584-9

Tyc, O., Zweers, H., de Boer, W., and Garbeva, P. (2015). Volatiles in inter-specific bacterial interactions. *Front. Microbiol.* 6, 1412. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01412

Vandenkoornhuyse, P., Quaiser, A., Duhamel, M., Le Van, A., and Dufresne, A. (2015). The importance of the microbiome of the plant holobiont. *New Phytol.* 206, 1196–1206. doi: 10.1111/nph.13312

Van Peer, R., Niemann, G. J., and Schippers, B. (1991). Induced resistance and phytoalexin accumulation in biological control of Fusarium wilt of carnation by *Pseudomonas* sp. strain WCS417r. *Phytopathology* 81, 728–734. doi: 10.1094/Phyto-81-728

Vasudeva, R. S., and Roy, T. C. (1950). The effect of associated soil microflora on *Fusarium umum* Butl., the fungus causing wilt of pigeon-pea (*Cajanus cajan* (L.) Millsp.). *Ann. Appl. Biol.* 37, 169–178. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1950.tb01037.x

Veliz, E. A., Martinez-Hidalgo, P., and Hirsch, A. M. (2017). Chitinase-producing bacteria and their role in biocontrol. *AIMS Microbiol.* 3, 689. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.689

Viterbo, A., Ramot, O., Chernin, L., and Chet, I. (2002). Significance of lytic enzymes from *Trichoderma* spp. in the biocontrol of fungal plant pathogens. *Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek.* 81, 549–556. doi: 10.1023/a:1020553421740

Voigt, K. (2002). "Management of *Fusarium* diseases," in *Agricultural Applications*. Ed. F. Kempken (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 217–242. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-03059-2_12

Vujanović, V., and Goh, Y. K. (2009). *Sphaerodes mycoparasitica* sp. nov., a new biotrophic mycoparasite on *Fusarium avenaceum*, *F. graminearum* and *F. oxysporum*. *Mycol. Res.* 113, 1172–1180. doi: 10.1016/j.mycres.2009.07.018

Wagacha, J. M., and Muthomi, J. W. (2007). *Fusarium culmorum*: Infection process, mechanisms of mycotoxin production and their role in pathogenesis in wheat. *Crop Prot.* 26, 877–885. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2006.09.003

Wagner, T. A., Duke, S. E., Davie, S. M., Magill, C., and Liu, J. (2022). Interaction of Fusarium wilt race 4 with root-knot nematode increases disease severity in cotton. *Plant Dis.* 106, 2558–2562. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-12-21-2725-SC

Walters, D. R., Ratsep, J., and Havis, N. D. (2013). Controlling crop diseases using induced resistance: challenges for the future. *J. Exp. Bot.* 64, 1263–1280. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ert026

Wang, X., Du, Z., Chen, C., Guo, S., Mao, Q., Wu, W., et al. (2023). Antifungal effects and biocontrol potential of lipopeptide-producing *Streptomyces* against banana Fusarium wilt fungus *Fusarium oxysporum* f. sp. cubense. *Front. Microbiol.* 14, 1177393. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1177393

Wang, T., Hao, Y., Zhu, M., Yu, S., Ran, W., Xue, C., et al. (2019). Characterizing differences in microbial community composition and function between Fusarium wilt diseased and healthy soils under watermelon cultivation. *Plant Soil* 438, 421–433. doi: 10.1007/s11104-019-04037-6

Wang, H., Li, X., Li, X., Wang, J., Li, X., Guo, Q., et al. (2020). Long-term no-tillage and different residue amounts alter soil microbial community composition and increase the risk of maize root rot in Northeast China. *Soil Tillage Res.* 196, 104452. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2019.104452

Wang, B., Li, R., Ruan, Y., Ou, Y., Zhao, Y., and Shen, Q. (2015). Pineapple-banana rotation reduced the amount of *Fusarium oxysporum* more than maize-banana rotation mainly through modulating fungal communities. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 86, 77–86. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.02.021

Wang, J.-T., Zheng, Y.-M., Hu, H.-W., Li, J., Zhang, L.-M., Chen, B.-D., et al. (2016). Coupling of soil prokaryotic diversity and plant diversity across latitudinal forest ecosystems. *Sci. Rep.* 6 (1), 19561. doi: 10.1038/srep19561

Weber, R., Hrynczuk, B., Runowska-Hrynczuk, B., and Kita, W. (2001). Influence of the mode of tillage on diseases of culm base in some winter wheat varieties, oats and spring wheat. *J. Phytopathol.* 149, 185–188. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0434.2001.00592.x

Weber, R., and Kita, W. (2010). Effects of tillage system and forecrop type on frequency of *Fusarium culmorum* and *F. avenaceum* occurrence on culm base of some winter wheat (*Triticum aestivum* L.) cultivars. *Acta Agrobot.* 63, 121–128. doi: 10.5586/aa.2010.014

Weller, D. M., Landa, B. B., Mavrodi, O. V., Schroeder, K. L., de la Fuente, L., Blouin Bankhead, S., et al. (2007). Role of 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol-producing fluorescent Pseudomonas spp. in the defense of plant roots. *Plant Biol. Stuttg. Ger.* 9, 4–20. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-924473

Weller, D. M., Raaijmakers, J. M., McSpadden Gardener, B. B., and Thomashow, L. S. (2002). Microbial populations responsible for specific soil suppressiveness to plant pathogens. *Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.* 40, 309–348. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.40.030402.110010

Willoquet, L., Meza, W. R., Dumont, B., Klocke, B., Feike, T., Kersebaum, K. C., et al. (2021). An outlook on wheat health in Europe from a network of field experiments. *Crop Prot.* 139, 105335. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105335

Winter, M., de Mol, F., and von Tiedemann, A. (2014). Cropping systems with maize and oilseed rape for energy production may reduce the risk of stem base diseases in wheat. *Field Crops Res.* 156, 249–257. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2013.10.009

Xia, J. W., Sandoval-Denis, M., Crous, P. W., Zhang, X. G., and Lombard, L. (2019). Numbers to names-restyling the *Fusarium incarnatum-equiseti* species complex. *Persoonia* 43, 186–221. doi: 10.3767/persoonia.2019.43.05

Xiong, W., Guo, S., Jousset, A., Zhao, Q., Wu, H., Li, R., et al. (2017). Bio-fertilizer application induces soil suppressiveness against Fusarium wilt disease by reshaping the soil microbiome. *Soil Biol. Biochem.* 114, 238–247. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.07.016

Xu, X. (2003). Effects of environmental conditions on the development of Fusarium Ear Blight. *Eur. J. Plant Pathol.* 109, 683–689. doi: 10.1023/A:1026022223359

Xu, F., Liu, W., Song, Y., Zhou, Y., Xu, X., Yang, G., et al. (2021). The distribution of *Fusarium graminearum* and *Fusarium asiaticum* causing Fusarium head blight of wheat in relation to climate and cropping system. *Plant Dis.* 105, 2830–2835. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-01-21-0013-RE

Xu, X.-M., Monger, W., Ritieni, A., and Nicholson, P. (2007). Effect of temperature and duration of wetness during initial infection periods on disease development, fungal biomass and mycotoxin concentrations on wheat inoculated with single, or combinations of *Fusarium* species. *Plant Pathol.* 56, 943–956. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3059.2007.01650.x

Xu, Z., Wang, M., Du, J., Huang, T., Liu, J., Dong, T., et al. (2020). Isolation of Burkholderia sp. HQB-1, a promising biocontrol bacteria to protect banana against Fusarium wilt through phenazine-1-carboxylic acid secretion. *Front. Microbiol.* 11, 605152. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.605152

Yadav, K., Damodaran, T., Dutt, K., Singh, A., Muthukumar, M., Rajan, S., et al. (2021). Effective biocontrol of banana Fusarium wilt tropical race 4 by a *Bacillus rhizobacteria* strain with antagonistic secondary metabolites. *Rhizosphere* 18, 100341. doi: 10.1016/j.rhisp.2021.100341
Ye, X., Li, Z., Luo, X., Wang, W., Li, Y., Li, R., et al. (2020). A predatory myxobacterium controls cucumber Fusarium wilt by regulating the soil microbial community. *Microbiome* 8 (49), 1–17. doi: 10.1186/s40168-020-00824-x

Yilmaz, N., Sandoval-Denis, M., Lombard, L., Visagie, C. M., Wingfield, B. D., and Crous, P. W. (2021). Redefining species limits in the *Fusarium fujikuroi* species complex. *Persoonia* 46, 129–162. doi: 10.3767/persoonia.2021.46.05

Yuan, J., Wen, T., Zhang, H., Zhao, M., Penton, C. R., Thomashow, L. S., et al. (2020). Predicting disease occurrence with high accuracy based on soil macroecological patterns of Fusarium wilt. *ISME J.* 14 (12), 2936–2950. doi: 10.1038/s41396-020-0720-5

Zaim, S., Belabid, L., Bayaa, B., and Bekkar, A. A. (2016). “Biological control of chickpea Fusarium wilts using rhizobacteria PGPR,” in *Microbial-mediated Induced Systemic Resistance in Plants*. Eds. D. Choudhary and A. Varma (Singapore: Springer Nature), 147–162.

Zalila-Kolsi, I., Ben Mahmoud, A., Ali, H., Sellami, S., Nasfi, Z., Tounsi, S., et al. (2016). Antagonist effects of Bacillus spp. strains against *Fusarium graminearum* for

protection of durum wheat (*Triticum turgidum* L. subsp. *durum*). *Microbiol. Res.* 192, 148–158. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2016.06.012

Zhao, S., Du, C.-M., and Tian, C.-Y. (2012). Suppression of *Fusarium oxysporum* and induced resistance of plants involved in the biocontrol of cucumber Fusarium wilt by *Streptomyces bikiniensis* HD-087. *World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.* 28, 2919–2927. doi: 10.1007/s11274-012-1102-6

Zhao, Y., Selvaraj, J., Xing, F., Zhou, L., Wang, Y., Song, H., et al. (2014). Antagonistic action of *Bacillus subtilis* strain SG6 on *Fusarium graminearum*. *PloS One* 9, e92486. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092486

Zhou, D., Jing, T., Chen, Y., Wang, F., Qi, D., Feng, R., et al. (2019). Deciphering microbial diversity associated with Fusarium wilt-diseased and disease-free banana rhizosphere soil. *BMC Microbiol.* 19, 1–13. doi: 10.1186/s12866-019-1531-6

Zohair, M. M., El-Beih, A. A., Sadik, M. W., Hamed, E. R., and Sedik, M. Z. (2018). Promising biocontrol agents isolated from medicinal plants rhizosphere against root-rot fungi. *Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol.* 15, 11–18. doi: 10.1016/j.bcab.2018.04.015