Journal of Plant Physiology & PathologyISSN: 2329-955X

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

Editorial, J Plant Physiol Pathol Vol: 13 Issue: 6

Soil-Borne Disease Management: Strategies for Sustainable Crop Protection

Dr. Ming Zhao*

Department of Plant Pathology, South China Agricultural University, China

*Corresponding Author:
Dr. Ming Zhao
Department of Plant Pathology, South China Agricultural University, China
E-mail: mzhao@scau.cn

Received: 01-Nov-2025, Manuscript No. jppp-26-183749; Editor assigned: 4-Nov-2025, Pre-QC No. jppp-26-183749 (PQ); Reviewed: 17-Nov-2025, QC No. jppp-26-183749; Revised: 24-Nov-2025, Manuscript No. jppp-26-183749 (R); Published: 29-Nov-2025, DOI: 10.4172/2329-955X.1000408

Citation: Ming Z (2025) Soil-Borne Disease Management: Strategies for Sustainable Crop Protection. J Plant Physiol Pathol 13: 408

Introduction

Soil-borne diseases are a major constraint to agricultural productivity worldwide, affecting roots and lower stems of crops and causing significant yield losses. These diseases are caused by a range of pathogens, including fungi, bacteria, nematodes, and oomycetes, which persist in soil for long periods. Common soil-borne pathogens such as Fusarium, Rhizoctonia, Pythium, and Ralstonia are difficult to control due to their survival structures and wide host ranges. Effective soil-borne disease management is essential for sustainable agriculture, crop health, and food security [1,2].

Discussion

Managing soil-borne diseases requires an integrated approach that combines cultural, biological, chemical, and genetic strategies. Cultural practices play a foundational role in reducing disease pressure. Crop rotation with non-host species can disrupt pathogen life cycles and reduce inoculum levels in soil. Proper drainage and soil structure management help prevent waterlogging, which often favors soil-borne pathogen development. Sanitation measures, such as removing infected plant residues, further limit pathogen spread [3,4].

Biological control has gained attention as an eco-friendly strategy for soil-borne disease management. Beneficial microorganisms, including Trichoderma, Pseudomonas, and Bacillus species, suppress pathogens through competition, antibiosis, and induction of plant defense responses. These biocontrol agents can improve soil microbial balance and enhance plant resistance while reducing reliance on chemical pesticides. Organic amendments like compost and biochar also support beneficial microbes and improve soil health [5].

Chemical control, such as soil fumigants and fungicides, can be effective but is often limited by environmental concerns, pathogen resistance, and regulatory restrictions. Therefore, chemicals are best used judiciously and in combination with other management practices. Host resistance is one of the most sustainable solutions, involving the use of disease-resistant cultivars developed through conventional breeding or modern biotechnological tools such as marker-assisted selection and CRISPR-based gene editing.

Emerging technologies, including soil microbiome analysis, precision agriculture, and disease forecasting models, are enhancing the effectiveness of soil-borne disease management. These tools enable early detection, targeted interventions, and improved decision-making, reducing unnecessary treatments and environmental impact.

Conclusion

Soil-borne disease management is a complex challenge that requires integrated, sustainable strategies. By combining cultural practices, biological control, host resistance, and responsible chemical use, it is possible to suppress soil-borne pathogens while maintaining soil health. Advances in microbiome research and precision agriculture further strengthen disease management efforts. Implementing holistic soil-borne disease management strategies is essential for long-term crop productivity, environmental sustainability, and global food security.

References

  1. Abrams R (1984) Genetic studies of the schizoaffective syndrome: a selective review. Schizophr Bull 10: 26-29.

    Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  2. Aron AR (2007) The neural basis of inhibition in cognitive control. The neuroscientist 13: 214-228.

    Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  3. Aron AR (2011) From reactive to proactive and selective control: developing a richer model for stopping inappropriate responses. Biol psychiatry 69: e55-e68.

    Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  4. Badcock JC, Michie PT, Johnson L, Combrinck J (2002) Acts of control in schizophrenia: dissociating the components of inhibition. Psychol Med 32: 287-297.

    Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  5. Bannon S, Gonsalvez CJ, Croft RJ, Boyce PM (2002) Response inhibition deficits in obsessiveâ??compulsive disorder. Psychiatry Res 110: 165-174.

    Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

international publisher, scitechnol, subscription journals, subscription, international, publisher, science

Track Your Manuscript

Awards Nomination