Back Article

Figure 1. 

Plate antagonism experiments on endophytic fungi against the pathogen Colletotrichum camelliae. Scale bar = 1 cm. CK: Two 5 mm PDA plugs were used as controls.

Figure 2. 

Morphological and molecular identification of En10 and En12. (a) Front and reverse view of En10 colony on PDA after 9 d, displaying hyphae and conidia. (b) Front and reverse view of En12 colony on PDA after 9 d, showing hyphae and conidia. (c) Phylogenetic analysis based on sequences of the internal transcribed spacer between En10 and En12.

Figure 3. 

Inhibition of colony growth of anthracnose pathogen by antagonistic fungi En10 and En12. (a) Dual culture test on anta gonistic fungi against the anthracnose pathogen. CK: Two 5 mm PDA plugs were used as controls. Scale bar = 1 cm. (b), (c) Area change of pathogen under the condition of antagonistic culture. The data represent the average ± SD of biological repeats, ns represents no significant difference and * stands for significant difference analysis.

Figure 4. 

Determination of the control effect of antagonistic fungi against the anthracnose on tea leaves. (a) and (b) indicate the images and the diseased area of tea leaves treated by blank solvent, fungi spores of En10 and En12 after 1, 3, and 5 d, respectively. The data represent the average ± SD of biological repeats. * means significant difference (p ≤ 0.05); ** represents significant difference (p ≤ 0.01); ns indicates no significant difference.

Figure 5. 

Detection of enzyme activity in tea leaves after spraying with antagonistic fungi. (a)−(c) indicates the SOD activity, POD activity and CAT activity, respectively. CK: sterile water treated. En10 (En12): antagonistic fungi spores treated. The data represent the average ± SD of three biological repeats. * stands for significant difference analysis and ns indicates no significant difference.