Submitted:
14 October 2025
Posted:
14 October 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Acquisition of Root Exudates
2.2. Seed Germination Test
2.3. Root Rot Identification Experiment
2.3.1. Root Rot Sampling
2.3.2. Morphological Identification
2.3.3. Molecular Biological Identification
2.4. Root Exudate Re-Inoculation Experiment
2.5. Data Processing and Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Root Exudates’ Influence on Seed Germination and Seedling Growth
3.2. Pathogens of Wolfberry Root Rot Identification
3.2.1. Morphological Identification of Pathogens to Wolfberry Root Rot Disease
3.2.2. Molecular Biological Identification
3.3. Pathogenic Bacteria of Mangold Root Rot Identification
3.3.1. Morphological Identification of Pathogens Related to Mangold Root Rot
3.3.2. Molecular Biological Identification
3.4. Root Exudates’ Effect on Pathogenic Bacteria of Root Rot Disease
3.4.1. Acquisition of root exudates
3.4.2. Effects of Different Root Secretions on the Plaque Size of Pathogenic Bacteria Related to Wolfberry Root Rot Disease
3.4.3. Effects of Different Root Exudates on the Plaque Size of Pathogenic Bacteria Related to Root Rot Disease of Mangold
4. Discussion
4.1. Root Exudates Play a Significant Role in Modulating Interspecific Plant Interactions
4.1. Effects of Allelopathic Compounds in Root Exudates on Seed Germination and Seedling Growth
4.3. Effects of Root Exudates on Soil-Borne Diseases
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hazrati, H.; Fomsgaard, I.; Kudsk, P. Root-Exuded Benzoxazinoids: Uptake and Translocation in Neighboring Plants. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, N.Q.; Kong, C.H.; Wang, P.; et al. Root exudate signals in plant–plant interactions. Plant, Cell & Environment 2021, 44, 1044–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frémont, A.; Sas, E.; Sarrazin, M.; et al. Phytochelatin and coumarin enrichment in root exudates of arsenic-treated white lupin. Plant, Cell & Environment 2022, 45, 936–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FERNÁNDEZ-APARICIOM; ANDOLFIA; EVIDENTEA; et al. Fenugreek root exudates show species-specific stimulation of Orobanche seed germination. Weed Research 2008, 48, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, Z.; Wang, D.; Cui, H.; et al. Phytotoxicity mechanisms of two coumarin allelochemicals from Stellera chamaejasme in lettuce seedlings[J]. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 2016, 38, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chadfield, V.G.A.; Hartley, S.E.; Redeker, K.R. Associational resistance through intercropping reduces yield losses to soil-borne pests and diseases[J]. New Phytologist 2022, 235, 2393–2405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, L.; Robert, C.; Selma, C.; et al. Root exudate metabolites drive plant-soil feedbacks on growth and defense by shaping the rhizosphere microbiota[J]. Nature Communications 2018, 9, 2738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lai, R.; Hu, H.; Wu, X.; et al. Intercropping oilseed rape as a potential relay crop for enhancing the biological control of green peach aphids and aphid-transmitted virus diseases[J]. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 2019, 167(11). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williamson-Benavides, B.A.; Dhingra, A. Understanding Root Rot Disease in Agricultural Crops[J]. Horticulturae 2021, (2). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, S.; Fen, L.; Guo, C.; et al. Negative plant-soil feedback driven by re-assemblage of the rhizosphere microbiome with the growth of Panax notoginseng[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yanjun, Saihenna; Yamei, Shimei; et al. Allelopathic effects of alfalfa ( Medicago sativa ) in the seedling stage on seed germination and growth of Elymus nutans in different areas[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica 2019, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.Y.; Shi, S.L.; Li, X.L.; et al. Effects of Autotoxicity on Alfalfa (Medicago sativa): Seed Germination, Oxidative Damage and Lipid Peroxidation of Seedlings[J]; Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nannipieri, P.; Ascher, J.; Ceccherini, M.T.; et al. Effects of Root Exudates in Microbial Diversity and Activity in Rhizosphere Soils[J]. In soil biology; 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lebeis, S.L.; Paredes, S.H.; Lundberg, D.S.; et al. PLANT MICROBIOME. Salicylic acid modulates colonization of the root microbiome by specific bacterial taxa[J]. Science 2015, 349(6250). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carvalhais, L.C.; Dennis, P.G.; Badri, D.V.; et al. Linking Jasmonic Acid Signaling, Root Exudates, and Rhizosphere Microbiomes[J]. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 2015, 28, 1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, N.; Zhang, R.; Wu, P.; et al. Responses of Root Exudates in Watermelon/Upland Rice Intercropping Systems to the Alleviation of Watermelon Fusarium Wilt[J]. Acta pedologica sinica 2014, 51, 9. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, Yang Min; et al. Plant-Plant-Microbe Mechanisms Involved in Soil-Borne Disease Suppression on a Maize and Pepper Intercropping System[J]. PLoS ONE 2014, 9. [Google Scholar]
- Hao, W.Y.; Ren, L.X.; Ran, W.; et al. Allelopathic effects of root exudates from watermelon and rice plants on Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. niveum[J]. Plant & Soil. 2010, 336(1-2), 485–97. [Google Scholar]
- Ren, L.X.; Zhang, N.; Wu, P.; et al. Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization alleviates Fusarium wilt in watermelon and modulates the composition of root exudates[J]. Plant Growth Regulation 2015, 77, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, X.; Wu, M.; Xu, R.; et al. Root Interactions in a Maize/Soybean Intercropping System Control Soybean Soil-Borne Disease, Red Crown Ro[J]. Plos One 2014, 9, e95031. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, L.; Li, X.; Li, H.; et al. Lauric acid in crown daisy root exudate potently regulates root-knot nematode chemotaxis and disrupts Mi-flp-18 expression to block infection[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany 2014, 131–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, W.; Liu, D.; Wu, F.; et al. Root exudates of wheat are involved in suppression of Fusarium wilt in watermelon in watermelon-wheat companion cropping[J]. European Journal of Plant Pathology 2015, 141, 209–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FARQUHARML; PETERSONRL Induction of protoplast formation in the ectomycorrhizal fungus Paxillus involutus by the root rot pathogen Fusarium oxysporum[J]. New Phytologist 1990, 116, 107–113. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.M.; Qiu, H.Z.; Zhang, C.H.; et al. Identification of chemicals in root exudates of potato and their effects on Rhizoctonia solani[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology 2015, 26, 859. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; Zeng, M. A study on allelopathy and analysis of allelochemicals in rhizosphere soil in orchards with continuous cropping of pear[J]. Journal of Fruit Science 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Smilanick, J.L. Postharvest Diseases of Fruits and Vegetables[J]. Postharvest Biology & Technology 2001, 31, 213. [Google Scholar]
- 39Benichou, M.; Ayour, J.; Sagar, M.; etal. Postharvest Technologies for Shelf Life Enhancement of Temperate Fruits[J]; 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kong, C.H.; Zhang, S.Z.; Li, Y.H.; et al. Plant neighbor detection and allelochemical response are driven by root-secreted signaling chemicals[J]. Nature Communications 2018, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, X.; Zhang, J.; Rahman et, a.l. Francisco. Interspecific plant interaction via root exudates structures the disease suppressiveness of rhizosphere microbiomes[J]. Molecular Plant 2023, 16, 849–864. [Google Scholar]
- Afridi, M S; Kumar, A; Javed, M A. Harnessing root exudates for plant microbiome engineering and stress resistance in plants[J]. Microbiological Research 2024, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, S.; Chen, Q.; Zheng, Y. Atale for two roles: Root-secreted methyl ferulate inhibits, P. nicotianae and enriches the rhizosphere Bacillus against black shank disease in tobacco[J]. Microbiome 2025, 13, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, L*; He, J; Tian, Y. Intercropping Wolfberry with Gramineae plants improves productivity and soil quality[J]. Scientia Horticulturae 2022, 292, 110632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, L.*.; Li, X.; He, J.; et al. Development of Lycium barbarum –Forage Intercropping Patterns[J]. Agronomy 2023, 13(5). [Google Scholar]
- Wang, F.; Zhu, L.*.; He, J.; et al. Selecting appropriate forage cover crops to improve growth, yield, and fruit quality of wolfberry by regulation of photosynthesis and biotic stress resistance[J]. Scientia Horticulturae 2024, 337, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, X.Z.; Liu, J.G.; Chen, H.W.; et al. The chemical sensitivity effect of wheat and alfalfa straw extract on cotton[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-occidentalis Sinica 2018, 27, 7. [Google Scholar]
- Hicks, S.K.; Wendt, C.W.; Gannaway, J.R.; et al. Allelopathic Effects of Wheat Straw on Cotton Germination, Emergence, and Yield[J]. Crop Science 1989, 29(4). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Yang, M.; Yin, R.; et al. Autotoxin Rg1 Induces Degradation of Root Cell Walls and Aggravates Root Rot by Modifying the Rhizospheric Microbiome[J]. Microbiology Spectrum 2021, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Jiao, Y.; et al. Tobacco Rotated with Rapeseed for Soil-Borne Phytophthora Pathogen Biocontrol: Mediated by Rapeseed Root Exudates[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology 2016, 7, 894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, H.; Yang, Y.; Mei, X.; et al. Phenolic Acids Released in Maize Rhizosphere During Maize-Soybean Intercropping Inhibit Phytophthora Blight of Soybean[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Zhang, L.; Jiang, X.; et al. Allelopathic effects of phenolic acids on the growth and physiological characteristics of strawberry plants[J]. Allelopathy Journal 2015, 35, 61–75. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, B.; Zhang, J.; Xiao, J.; et al. Long-Term Intercropping With Nitrogen Management to Improve Soil Quality and Control Crop Diseases[J]. Plant, Cell & Environment 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FARQUHARML; PETERSONRL Induction of protoplast formation in the ectomycorrhizal fungus Paxillus involutus by the root rot pathogen Fusarium oxysporum[J]. New Phytologist 1990, 116, 107–113. [CrossRef]






| Treatment | Germination rate (%) | Inhibition rate (%) | Length (cm) | Inhibition rate (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| wolfberry solution treatmen | Distilled water control | wolfberry solution treatmen | Distilled water control | |||
| Ryegrass | 61.90±2.21 c | 59.33±1.45 c | -4.33 n.s | 5.17±0.08 e | 11.16±0.56 c | 53.66*** |
| Alfalfa | 88.74±2.21 b | 95.33±4.37 a | 6.91* | 7.69±0.56 d | 4.39±0.10 ef | -75.24*** |
| Clover | 92.47±1.77 ab | 88.67±3.12 b | -4.29 n.s | 4.27±0.07 f | 2.91±0.22 g | -46.74*** |
| Fodder beet | 12.10±0.89 d | 8.89±0.06 e | -36.11*** | 13.43±0.14 a | 12.56±0.27 b | -6.94* |
| L.S.D.(5%) | ||||||
| Root exudates | Germination rate (%) | Inhibition rate (%) | Bud length (cm) | Inhibition rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 91.00±1.44 a | 0.00 | 3.97±0.12 d | 0.00 |
| Ryegrass | 86.99±4.87 a | 4.41 n | 6.18±0.09 bc | -55.75*** |
| Alfalfa | 89.16±0.23 a | 1.75 n | 6.39±0.23 b | -60.96*** |
| Clover | 87.69±1.89 a | 3.22 n | 7.53±0.20 a | -89.67*** |
| Fodder beet | 88.07±1.11 a | 2.84 n | 5.38±0.07 c | -35.60*** |
| L.S.D.(5%) |
| Strain designation | Scientific name abbreviations | Max Score | Total Score | Query Cover | E value | Per. Ident | Acc. Len | Accession |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lb-A | Mucor circinelloides | 1107 | 1107 | 97% | 0 | 99.67% | 618 | KF435037.1 |
| Mucor circinelloides | 1103 | 1103 | 98% | 0 | 99.51% | 1105 | MT603942.1 | |
| Mucor circinelloides | 1103 | 1103 | 98% | 0 | 99.51% | 1106 | MT603901.1 | |
| Mucor circinelloides | 1103 | 1103 | 98% | 0 | 99.51% | 1065 | MT603900.1 | |
| Mucor circinelloides | 1103 | 1103 | 98% | 0 | 99.51% | 642 | KX349456.1 | |
| Lb-B | Rhizopus arrhizus | 1088 | 1088 | 95% | 0 | 100.00% | 593 | MN525244.1 |
| Rhizopus arrhizus | 1088 | 1088 | 95% | 0 | 100.00% | 592 | MN525242.1 | |
| Rhizopus arrhizus | 1088 | 1088 | 96% | 0 | 99.83% | 621 | MK174986.1 | |
| Rhizopus arrhizus | 1085 | 1085 | 97% | 0 | 99.17% | 633 | MN010553.1 | |
| Rhizopus arrhizus | 1085 | 1085 | 97% | 0 | 99.50% | 629 | MN006654.1 | |
| Rhizopus arrhizus | 1085 | 1085 | 96% | 0 | 99.66% | 619 | MK174988.1 | |
| Lb-D | Fusarium solani | 1986 | 1986 | 0.99 | 0 | 1 | 1075 | GU170639.1 |
| Fusarium solani | 1984 | 1984 | 0.99 | 0 | 1 | 1434 | LT746274.1 | |
| Fusarium solani | 1984 | 1984 | 0.99 | 0 | 1 | 1103 | KY484955.2 | |
| Fusarium solani | 1984 | 1984 | 0.99 | 0 | 1 | 1103 | KY484946.1 | |
| Fusarium solani | 1984 | 1984 | 0.99 | 0 | 1 | 1168 | KT313637.1 | |
| Lb-E | Fusarium oxysporum | 1319 | 1319 | 0.99 | 0 | 1 | 714 | KF913725.1 |
| Fusarium oxysporum | 1317 | 1317 | 0.99 | 0 | 1 | 714 | KF574854.1 | |
| Fusarium oxysporum | 1317 | 1317 | 0.99 | 0 | 1 | 713 | DQ837657.1 | |
| Fusarium oxysporum | 1314 | 1314 | 1 | 0 | 0.9986 | 1015 | MK059958.1 | |
| Fusarium oxysporum | 1314 | 1314 | 1 | 0 | 0.9986 | 1067 | KX822794.1 |
| Strain designation | Scientific name abbreviations | Max Score | Total Score | Query Cover | E value | Per. Ident | Acc. Len | Accession |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bv-A | Mucor lusitanicus | 1011 | 1011 | 0.98 | 0 | 0.8759 | 2796 | JN993501.1 |
| Mucor hiemalis | 883 | 883 | 0.97 | 0 | 0.8511 | 2652 | EF014398.1 | |
| Mucor irregularis | 880 | 880 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.864 | 1003 | JX976270.1 | |
| Mucor irregularis | 869 | 869 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.8616 | 1003 | JX976276.1 | |
| Mucor irregularis | 869 | 869 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.8616 | 1003 | JX976287.1 | |
| Bv-B | Aspergillus sp. IFM 64240 | 1454 | 1454 | 0.97 | 0 | 0.9987 | 1050 | LC179908.1 |
| Aspergillus tubingensis | 1454 | 1454 | 0.97 | 0 | 0.9987 | 1052 | LC000573.1 | |
| Aspergillus tubingensis | 1454 | 1454 | 0.97 | 0 | 0.9987 | 997 | KC796436.1 | |
| Aspergillus pulverulentus | 1454 | 1454 | 0.97 | 0 | 0.9987 | 1040 | HE984368.1 | |
| Aspergillus tubingensis | 1454 | 1454 | 0.97 | 0 | 0.9987 | 3771 | XM035498810.1 | |
| Bv-C | Fusarium solani | 1042 | 1042 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 566 | MT605584.1 |
| Fusarium solani | 1042 | 1042 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 566 | MK372367.1 | |
| Fusarium solani | 1042 | 1042 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 566 | MG836251.1 | |
| Fusarium solani | 1042 | 1042 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 570 | MG561938.1 | |
| Fusarium solani | 1042 | 1150 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 623 | KY617035.1 | |
| Bv-E | Fusarium solani | 1986 | 1986 | 0.99 | 0 | 1 | 1075 | GU170639.1 |
| Fusarium solani | 1984 | 1984 | 0.99 | 0 | 1 | 1434 | LT746274.1 | |
| Fusarium solani | 1984 | 1984 | 0.99 | 0 | 1 | 1103 | KY484955.2 | |
| Fusarium solani | 1984 | 1984 | 0.99 | 0 | 1 | 1103 | KY484946.1 | |
| Fusarium solani | 1984 | 1984 | 0.99 | 0 | 1 | 1168 | KT313637.1 | |
| Bv-F | Fusarium solani | 1048 | 1048 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 567 | AB470903.1 |
| Fusarium solani | 1048 | 1048 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 570 | MG561938.1 | |
| Fusarium solani | 1048 | 1048 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 567 | AB470903.1 | |
| Fusarium solani | 1046 | 1046 | 0.99 | 0 | 1 | 566 | MT605584.1 | |
| Fusarium solani | 1046 | 1046 | 0.99 | 0 | 1 | 566 | MK372367.1 |
| Treatment | Diameter of Pathogenic Bacteria ( mm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lb-A | Lb-B | Lb-C | Lb-E | |
| CK | 60.52±0.57 a | 65.22±1.09 d | 17.79±1.82 c | 16.88±0.20 a |
| Ms | 57.58±0.38 b | 73.89±0.50 b | 19.96±1.72 a | 16.23±0.11 ab |
| Tr | 56.87±0.66 b | 76.42±0.78 a | 19.74±0.96 a | 16.07±0.11 ab |
| Lp | 53.88±1.50 c | 72.93±0.37 bc | 14.98±0.17 e | 16.16±0.17 ab |
| Bv | 58.11±0.31 b | 71.17±0.10 c | 16.87±0.35 d | 15.43±0.37 b |
| Lb | 53.88±1.50 c | 72.93±0.37 bc | 18.98±0.17 b | 17.16±0.17 a |
| L.S.D.(5%) | ||||
| Treatment | Growth rate of mycalia (mm·d-1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lb-A | Lb-B | Lb-C | Lb-E | |
| CK | 11.92±1.05 a | 13.96±1.72 b | 6.85±0.17 a | 4.73±0.02 a |
| Ms | 11.28±0.33 b | 15.32±2.43 a | 4.31±0.05 c | 4.53±0.14 ab |
| Tr | 11.32±0.54 b | 16.01±0.66 a | 3.07±0.03 d | 4.27±0.14 ab |
| Lp | 11.40±1.05 ab | 13.68±0.22 b | 5.70±0.98 b | 4.56±0.21 a |
| Bv | 9.46±1.50 c | 13.72±0.89 b | 5.69±0.43 b | 4.07±0.05 b |
| Lb | 11.34±1.00 ab | 13.66±0.22 b | 6.99±0.98 a | 4.76±0.21 a |
| L.S.D.(5%) | ||||
| Treatment | Diameter of Pathogenic Bacteria ( mm) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bv-A | Bv-B | Bv-C | Bv-E | Bv-F | |
| CK | 25.83±0.36a | 70.81±2.00a | 17.79±1.82b | 16.25±0.68d | 21.29±2.71b |
| Ms | 20.18±2.77b | 62.76±0.48b | 18.96±1.72a | 18.80±0.85b | 21.80±1.99b |
| Tr | 20.06±2.15b | 61.45±0.45b | 18.74±0.96a | 19.86±0.37a | 21.46±1.44b |
| Lp | 19.45±1.95b | 62.72±1.56b | 14.98±0.17c | 10.06±0.10e | 18.22±2.98c |
| Lb | 20.61±1.45b | 69.07±1.07a | 18.87±0.35a | 17.55±0.63c | 22.18±3.16a |
| Bv | 19.45±1.95b | 62.72±1.56b | 17.98±0.17b | 16.76±0.10d | 22.22±1.98a |
| L.S.D.(5%) | |||||
| Treatment | Growth rate of mycalia(mm·d-1) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bv-A | Bv-B | Bv-C | Bv-E | Bv-F | |
| CK | 14.21±0.42a | 3.03±0.15a | 5.46±0.32a | 5.40±0.89ab | 4.17±0.01a |
| Ms | 13.44±0.37ab | 3.13±0.07a | 4.88±0.05b | 4.06±1.02c | 4.07±0.43a |
| Tr | 14.22±0.19a | 3.13±0.11a | 4.01±0.69c | 4.81±1.02bc | 2.96±0.17b |
| Lp | 12.66±0.54b | 2.97±0.22ab | 4.44±0.41c | 5.04±0.77b | 3.43±0.09b |
| Lb | 13.80±0.17a | 2.37±0.19b | 5.56±0.46a | 5.80±0.12a | 4.13±0.11a |
| Bv | 12.97±0.51b | 2.99±0.27ab | 5.44±0.41a | 5.44±0.77ab | 4.03±0.09a |
| L.S.D.(5%) | |||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).