A New Benzothiadiazole Derivative with Systemic Acquired Resistance Activity in the Protection of Zucchini (Cucurbita pepo convar. giromontiina) against Viral and Fungal Pathogens

Abstract

The ability of plant resistance inducers to provide protection against viral diseases is one of their main advantages over conventional pesticides. In the case of viral diseases that cannot be controlled directly with pesticides, insecticides are used to control the vectors of viruses. However, the effectiveness of such treatments is strictly dependent on the time of application. The plant response to the application of systemic acquired resistance (SAR) inducers, as a result of the stimulating action of these substances, does not depend on the time of application as it triggers the plant’s natural defence mechanism. The best-recognised substance showing SAR inducer activity is acibenzolar-S-methyl ester (ASM, BTH). As its activity against different plant pathogens of crops has been well documented, the current research is concentrated on the search for novel substances of the type. The tested substance, N-methoxy-N-methylbenzo(1,2,3)thiadiazole-7-carboxamide (BTHWA), is an amide derivative of benzothiadiazole, showing plant resistance-inducing activity. This article presents the activity of BTHWA that has led to increased resistance of zucchini (Cucurbita pepo convar. giromontiina) towards viral infections. In addition, since the occurrence of the fungal pathogen, powdery mildew, was also observed during the two-year field experiments, the activity of BTHWA related to the reduction of infection with this fungus was also investigated. The substance was applied in two different variants either four or eight times, over the whole vegetation season. Surprisingly, the variant of four applications performed at the beginning of the vegetation season proved more effective in protection against viruses and fungus. A possible explanation may be the occurrence of the growth–immunity trade-off phenomenon that is known in the literature. Disturbance in plant metabolism resulting from eight applications may lead to lower yields of plants treated with SAR inducers. Perhaps such overstimulation of the plants we treated eight times may not have brought the optimum increase in plant resistance.