Next Article in Journal
AEGIS, the Virtual European Genebank: Why It Is Such a Good Idea, Why It Is Not Working and How It Could Be Improved
Next Article in Special Issue
A Metabolic Profiling Analysis Revealed a Primary Metabolism Reprogramming in Arabidopsis glyI4 Loss-of-Function Mutant
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Light Spectrum and Intensity on the Growth, Physiology, and Antioxidant Activity of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Biotechnological Resources to Increase Disease-Resistance by Improving Plant Immunity: A Sustainable Approach to Save Cereal Crop Production
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/plants10102163
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Influence of Silicon on Biocontrol Strategies to Manage Biotic Stress for Crop Protection, Performance, and Improvement

by
Krishan K. Verma
1,†,
Xiu-Peng Song
1,†,
Dan-Dan Tian
2,
Dao-Jun Guo
1,3,
Zhong-Liang Chen
1,3,
Chang-Song Zhong
4,
Amin Nikpay
5,
Munna Singh
6,
Vishnu D. Rajput
7,
Rupesh Kumar Singh
8,
Tatiana Minkina
7 and
Yang-Rui Li
1,3,*
1
Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Biotechnology and Genetic Improvement (Guangxi), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Guangxi Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Genetic Improvement/Sugarcane Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning 530007, China
2
Institute of Biotechnology, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning 530007, China
3
College of Agriculture, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China
4
Division of Science and Technology, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning 530007, China
5
Department of Plant Protection, Sugarcane and By-Products Development Company, Salman Farsi Agro-Industry, Ahwaz 61348-14543, Iran
6
Department of Botany, University of Lucknow, Lucknow 226007, India
7
Academy of Biology and Biotechnology, Southern Federal University, 344090 Rostov-on-Don, Russia
8
Centro de Quimica de Vila Real, Universidade de Tras-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Quinta de Prados, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors have contributed equally to this work.
Plants 2021, 10(10), 2163; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10102163
Submission received: 10 August 2021 / Revised: 3 October 2021 / Accepted: 8 October 2021 / Published: 12 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biotechnological Resources for Improvement of Disease Resistance and Nutritional Quality in Staple Crops)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Silicon (Si) has never been acknowledged as a vital nutrient though it confers a crucial role in a variety of plants. Si may usually be expressed more clearly in Si-accumulating plants subjected to biotic stress. It safeguards several plant species from disease. It is considered as a common element in the lithosphere of up to 30% of soils, with most minerals and rocks containing silicon, and is classified as a “significant non-essential” element for plants. Plant roots absorb Si, which is subsequently transferred to the aboveground parts through transpiration stream. The soluble Si in cytosol activates metabolic processes that create jasmonic acid and herbivore-induced organic compounds in plants to extend their defense against biotic stressors. The soluble Si in the plant tissues also attracts natural predators and parasitoids during pest infestation to boost biological control, and it acts as a natural insect repellent. However, so far scientists, policymakers, and farmers have paid little attention to its usage as a pesticide. The recent developments in the era of genomics and metabolomics have opened a new window of knowledge in designing molecular strategies integrated with the role of Si in stress mitigation in plants. Accordingly, the present review summarizes the current status of Si-mediated plant defense against insect, fungal, and bacterial attacks. It was noted that the Si-application quenches biotic stress on a long-term basis, which could be beneficial for ecologically integrated strategy instead of using pesticides in the near future for crop improvement and to enhance productivity.

1. Introduction

Silicon, a semi-essential element, induces protection against biotic and abiotic stressors in plants [1,2,3,4]; however, being a major component in soil, it is not yet accepted as a necessary component of plant life. Nearly 95% of the Earth’s crust comprises silica, silicate, or aluminosilicate minerals that contain oxygen, silicon, and aluminum [5]. Silicon has twelve different crystal modifications found in numerous rocks, viz., granite and sandstone.
The change in the pH extends the better availability of macro- and micro-nutrients included in Si fertilizers, which acquire stress resistance in plants. Silicon may increase plant performance, fruit yield, and grain quality [6,7,8,9]. The physiological, biochemical, and molecular responses of plants to biotic and abiotic stressors are remarkably the same when Si is absorbed by the roots and transferred to the shoots by implying its role in defense signaling pathways [4,10]. Soon, the use of Si is expected to become a sustainable strategy with the rising trend in agriculture and horticulture for enhancing crop growth and alleviating abiotic and biotic adverse variables [11,12]. Silicon may help plants to resist pathogen invasion through structural defenses [1,13,14]. It inhibits pathogen colonization by the stimulation of systemic acquired resistance (SAR) and the production of antimicrobial compounds [15,16,17,18] by enhancing the tolerance capacity of plants linked with activation of signaling pathways and expression of genes [4,15,16,19,20].
Plant diseases occurring because of fungal pathogens are one of the most significant restrictions on plant performance [2,7]. Consequently, the use of fungicides and the adoption of tolerance species/ rootstocks were found to be common and more successful methods [21,22] to generate resistance that overcome fungal infections based on genotype–environment interactions [23]. The repeated use of fungicide could cause recurring financial losses and the emergence of disease-resistant populations with severe environmental implications [24,25]. Hence, an alternate eco-friendly approach must be identified in the near future. The disease-suppressing benefits of soil fertilizers with nutritional components with Si have been demonstrated under biotic stress [4,16]. The use of Si has been accepted as a potential alternative over traditional methods due to its crucial role to empower stress tolerance to enhance crop productivity along with agribusiness management [7,15,16,18,26,27]. The various adaptive strategies offered Si-enhanced fungal disease resistance [15,16,18,28] and were found to be linked with significantly higher Si deposits in leaves as a potent physical barrier against the penetration ability of pathogens.
Keeping such unique contributions of Si, such as immunizing any higher biological system against biotic diseases, present in the review are accommodated by recent scientific updates for plant disease resistance influenced by Si through augmentation of antimicrobial chemical synthesis, enzymatic activity, and signaling pathways, which could be useful for researchers in times to come for crop protection and its productivity.

2. Availability of Si in Soil

Silicon is the universe’s seventh most plentiful element and the planet’s second most prevalent element. Next to oxygen, Si is the second most abundant compound in the Earth’s crust (~28% weight basis) [2,5,28]. Silicon reacts with oxygen to generate silicates, such as quartz and feldspar. Silicates, viz., quartz and feldspar, are formed when Si combines with oxygen. Silica (quartz) is a silicon and oxygen silicate, whereas feldspars contain other elements besides Si and O2. Soils are made up of silicates and alumino-silicate minerals, while rocks are built up from silicates and alumino-silicate compounds. The physiological weathering of silicate releases Si in soil, forming monosilicic acid (H4SiO4), which does not dissolve at a pH less than 9 and which is absorbed by plant roots from the soil [3,27,29,30,31]. Monosilicic acid concentrations in soil solutions vary from 0.1–0.6 mM [1,32,33]. The growing plants must have a substantial quantity of Si in abundance in soil for its absorption by plants, which is widely distributed in the biological systems [1]. The different types of soils contain varied levels of Si content. For example, in sand, the top strata typically have low concentrations of Si, whereas clay soils include the maximum quantity of phyllosilicates that release Si [34]. Sand comprises quartz (SiO2), which has a complicated chemical breakdown strategy, and is more susceptible to Si fertilization than clay soils [35]. An intensive cropping system sequesters Si ca. 210–224 mtons from the soil through phytoremediation from cultivated land each year, globally [36,37].

3. Action Mechanism of Si and Interaction of Biotic Stress

The action mechanism of Si in plant defense is associated with three actions, viz., the physical, biochemical, and molecular action of mechanisms [22,38], identified as cell wall stiffness reinforcement, papillae formation, callose deposition, signal transduction, and gene expression induced by stressors in plants [4,7,39,40,41].

3.1. Silicon Resist Insect Pests’ Diseases

Insects devastate 1/5th of the global agriculture crop yield by consuming leaves, absorbing juice from various plant tissues, and imposing various stresses [42,43] (Table 1). Insect pests may also develop resistance capacity to toxic chemicals in plants [44,45,46]. The herbivorous insects’ host preferences are mainly affected by the physical condition of the host plant, which primarily depends on the nutritional requirements [7,47]. Mineral nutrients such as Si may be added to reduce crop susceptibility to pests [48] to promote insect pest resistance in plants [10,49]. The leaves of Magnaporthe grisea having a high accumulation of Si reduces lesion formation [25,50] and improves tolerance capacity in the stem, stalk, and shoot of Triticum spp., Oryza spp., Zea spp., and Saccharum spp. against biotic stressors [10,27]. Silicon improves plant resistance to insect damage by developing phytoliths in plant leaves, which increase tissue hardness, weaken herbivore mouthparts, and reduce leaf digestibility (Table 1). It may also impair digestibility by reducing nitrogen and carbohydrate availability during digestion [46,51]. The presence of Si in plant tissue causes metabolic changes that protect the insect pest loss [52]. Generally, insecticides first target the midgut cells of insects [53,54] and cause difficulty in biting and digesting plant tissues due to inert amorphous silica [2,55,56].
A recent study looked at the correlation of feeding Si-containing compounds on the change in the shape of Tuba absoluta larvae’s midgut and mandibles [46]. It was also noted that the plants with high Si contents also showed better resistance capacity against T. absoluta (Meyrick) attacks. The separation of midgut cells from the basal membrane in T. absoluta (Meyrick) caterpillars results in digestive problems [46]. Sucking by insects may be primarily based on a phloem feeder [7,55,56]. The middle lamella’s stiffness and pectin act as a physical barrier to stylet penetration [57]. Silicon deposits would also hamper stylet penetration in cell walls, which are a mechanical barrier. It engaged in the variations of biochemical properties linked to plant defense systems and mechanical constraints against insect harm [22,58]. Silicon alters the structure of trichomes and promotes lignin buildup and the synthesis of phenolics, chitinases, and peroxidases activities, among other defense mechanisms [59]. Many of these characteristics are also linked with plant resistance to sucking insects, which alters their probing behavior [12,28,60].
Unlike folivores, Massey et al. [55] discovered that increasing plant Si did not affect phloem-feeding insects’ feeding population growth performance. This insects’ feeding and secretion of honeydew cause the growth of sooty mold, which reduces Cucumis sativus productivity quantitatively and qualitatively [61]. Silicon generates defensive compounds in C. sativus [62,63]. Similarly, Si fertilization has a negative impact on green insect preference in Triticum spp. [64]. Si-supplied plants may have remarkable higher enzymatic activities. The enhanced activities of CAT and SOD in Nilaparvata lugens (Stl)-infested Oryza sativa plants as compared to a control were observed [65].
Silicon-induced resistance to borer caterpillars of the Pyralidae family in O. sativa has been observed [66]. However, Si influences the growth of the armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) in Z. mays [66]. The greenbug (Schizaphis graminum Rond) is a severe pest that causes direct and indirect harm by feeding on phloem sap and transmitting viruses and other infections. Silicon showed a negative effect on greenbug eating preferences and lowered reproduction rates in Sorghum bicolor and Triticum spp. [67,68]. It boosts pathogen defense mechanisms in Cucumis sativus. The insect’s feeding, development, longevity, and fecundity were found to be lowered upon Si application [37,69] in the case that it was applied in the soil and combined with one or two foliar sprays [70]. However, the availability of Si in upper plant parts does not necessarily prevent insect herbivory and growth [71].
Silicon fertilization has little influence on Agrotis ipsilon survival or mandibular wear [72], with no discernible influence of Si in Z. mays on the growth of Chilo partellus larvae [73]. Table 1 indicates the impact of Si on different forms of insect pests sucking and chewing on plants. The application of potassium silicate in conjunction with the Beauveria bassiana fungus was found to be substantially more effective in killing spider mites (Tetranychus urticae Koch), with a casualty rate up to 92% [74]. The signaling molecule (Jasmonic acid) is activated by insect mastication, resulting in the production of herbivore-induced plant volatiles [4,7,75].
Si-amended C. sativus attract insect predators, viz., Dicranolaius bellulus (Guérin-Méville) against Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) [76]. Soil-applied Si produced n-heptadecane in Vitis vinifera infested with Phalaenoides glycinae [77]. Similarly, compared to a combination of Si and B. bassiana, a single application of Si proved unsuccessful in killing spider mites (Tetranychus urticae (Koch)), which led to a significant reduction in mite populations in Phaseolus vulgaris, Cucumis sativa, Solanum melongena, and Zea mays [25,74]. Another way that Si treatment may help plants against herbivores is by producing hirsute foliage [78] with a buildup of defensive chemicals, viz., phytoalexins, phenolics, and momilactones [58,79,80], and by altering the expression of defense-related genes [4,81,82] as this stimulates jasmonate-mediated defense activities in O. sativa plants during insect chewing of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenee) [83,84].

3.2. Effects of Silicon on Plant Fungal Diseases

Fungal pathogen-induced diseases are most severe on crop productivity across the globe, qualitatively and quantitatively. Fungal pathogens, viz., Alternaria solani, Phytophthora infestans, Fusarium oxysporium, Verticilium dahlia, and Septoria lycopersici have been found to be limiting factors for crop productivity and fruit quality [4]. Fungicides and resistant cultivars are the most effective control measures for reducing disease severity [22,85,86]. The use of Si has been promoted as a more promising option for the better management of fungal plant diseases [7,16,23].
Silicon induces a thicker cellulose membrane, while the density of short and long silicified cells in the epidermis of plant leaves, the double cuticular layer, papilla growth, and the thick silica layer beneath the cuticle may help to reduce the severity of illness in plants under field conditions to prevent crop losses [87]. Foliar application of Si extended prevention of powdery mildew in V. vinifera, C. sativus, and C. melo [88,89]. The biogenic Si deposition in A. thaliana after activation of callose synthesis [90] often acts as an employed stress signal [91]. The phenolics isolated from Si-applied plants have shown strong fungistatic properties [92]. Cherif et al. [93] found that the Si applied in C. sativa plants found higher peroxidase, chitinase, polyphenol oxidases, and -1,3 glucanase activities. Amendment of Si in Lolium perenne L. plant had higher chlorogenic acid and flavonoid levels and increased peroxidase and polyphenol oxidase activity in plants infected by Magnaporthe oryzae, which are linked with expression of phenylalanine ammonia-lyase and lipoxygenase activities [94].
Silicon-applied plants demonstrated localized cell defense mechanisms through papilla formation, callose synthesis, and the deposition of glycosylated phenolics by Blumeria graminis; additionally, changes soil pH to ensure benefits for plants [139,140,141,142,143] to reduce soil and airborne fungal infections (Table 1).

3.3. The Impact of Silicon on Plant Bacterial Infections

Silicon has amazing biotic elicitor effects in a variety of plants [52,92,144,145]. Silicon, like commercially available medications such as benzothiadiazole (BTH) and acibenzolar-S-methyl (ASM), has been linked to the development of systemic acquired resistance (SAR) [15]. Solanum lycopersicum plant’s resistance to bacterial wilt disease improved by exogenous application of Si [146,147]. Si-applied leaves of Oryza spp. [81], Triticum spp. [148], and Cucumis spp. [148] show an enhancement in an antioxidative enzymatic capacity related to defense mechanisms, resulting in a reduction in disease severity [4,148,149,150], whereas it alters the gene expression in S. lycopersicum and Ralstonia solanacearum [12,151,152,153,154,155]. The association between Si and the application of biocontrol agents for the better utilization and management of Podosphaera xantii (Castagne) in Cucurbita spp. [156], yeasts with Acidovorax citrulli in Cucumis melo [157], and adjuvants for controlling P. xantii in C. melo [158,159] was found.
Increasing the dose of Si lowered the vulnerability of a cultivar to disease [160] as mangrove plants subjected to extreme climatic circumstances improved their ability to survive [161]. Similarly, deposition of intercellular Si acts as a barrier against disease penetration [162]. Bacterial wilt is widely spread in arid, semi-arid, and temperate regions [163], resulting in partial or complete mortality of S. lycopersicum plants [164]. A highly adaptable and varied bacterium, R. solanacearum, is the causative agent [165]. Silicon’s involvement as a chemical resistance against the bacterium is significant since it affects quantitative resistance against pathogens (Table 1) [146]. The following are the leading theories for explaining Si-induced tolerance: Si creates chemical compounds that promote plant tolerance and acts as a mechanical barrier against disease advancement [139,151,152,153,166,167]. Kurabachew et al. [167] found that Si and Bacillus pumilis greatly reduce the incidence of bacterial wilt by 50% and 27%, respectively. Hence, Si treatment improves plant resistance to bacterial infections.

4. Silicon Increase Resistance Mechanism

Despite several research findings on silicon’s effects on fungal infections, its characteristics, efficacy spectrum, and action method are still unknown [15,16,18,168]. When grown in a controlled hydroponic environment, Si does not influence plant performance [26].

4.1. Mechanism Physical Barrier

Silicon accumulated on the surface of tissues acts as a physical disturbance that helps with fungal diseases; according to the first hypothesis, Si improved tolerance capacity. Silicon protects plants from fungal infections by preventing physical penetration, mechanically strengthening plants, and/or making plant cells less vulnerable to pathogen enzymatic breakdown (Figure 1). A thick layer of silica is formed beneath the cuticle of O. sativa leaves and sheaths after monosilicic acid polymerization [169]. This Si layer behind the cuticle could be part of what prevents pathogens from penetrating; it could form complexes with organic molecules in the epidermal cell walls, making them more resistant to breakdown by the secretion of enzymes in fungal infections [4,7] and may also be connected to lignin-carbohydrate compounds found in epidermal cell walls [22,170]. Silicified epidermal cell walls were found to be less severe for rice blast disease (Magnaporthe grisea) in O. sativa [171].
The foliar application of Si causes a physical barrier and osmotic effect in the Cucumis–Podosphaera xanthii pathosystem. Silicon in the epidermis of Oryza leaves confers resistance to M. grisea (blast) appressorial penetration [172]. Heine et al. [173] proposed that the deposition of Si in root cell walls did not act as a physical obstacle to Pythium aphanidermatum spreading in Momordica charantia and Solanum lycopersicum roots. Based on the present findings, it was hypothesized that the tolerance of fungal pathogen in Si-applied plants was considerably more sophisticated than physical tolerance, which has been seriously debated and questioned in recent years [18,25,27,37].

4.2. Biochemical Mechanism

Silicon helps plants to defend themselves by increasing different biochemical mechanisms (Figure 1), which boosts antimicrobial enzymes like polyphenol oxidase, glucanase, peroxidase, phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL), phenolics, flavonoids, phytoalexins, and pathogen-related proteins that upregulate various defense signaling pathways such as SA, JA, and ET (Figure 2) [4,7,15,16,17,18] integrated with the induction of various signal transduction pathways [22,25,27]. Salicylic acid activates defense mechanisms primarily against biotrophic and hemibiotrophic pathogens, whereas JA and ET broadly activate defense mechanisms during necrotrophic infections [174].
Multiple studies have found that Si regulates plant stress activities by affecting plant hormones’ homeostasis balance and by promoting various signaling pathways [2,78,151,154,175,176,177,178]. Plant hormones accumulate in Si-amended plants in response to pathogen disease and wounding [7,83,176,179]. The plant hormones such as SA, JA, and ET are the first line of protection in increasing the plant responses to different herbivores. JA and SA are associated with defense against herbivores. In particular, JA manages cell-content-feeding and tissue-chewing insects against phloem-feeding-insects [7,180,181].
Due to enhanced production of SA, JA, and ET in A. thaliana, plants affected by powdery mildew pathogen in Si-amended Erysiphe cichoracearum had greater resistance [176]. Silicon has also been reported to activate the JA and ET signaling pathways in Solanum lycopersicum infected with Ralstonia solanacearum [151,175,178]. Oryza has been challenged by Magnaporthe oryzae, and the impacts of Si on the JA and ET signaling pathways revealed that Si was connected to higher signaling activities, resulting in increased rice tolerance subjected to blast disease [154,177]. In A. thaliana powdery mildew disease, Si upregulated the genes’ expression encoding enzymes associated with SA pathway [20,22,27]. According to the Si chemically increased resistance theory, soluble Si in plant organs can be linked to improved fungal disease tolerance. After being infected with necrotizing diseases, many plants developed increased resistance to future pathogen attacks, known as systemic acquired resistance (SAR) [182]. Due to Si application on plants, two mechanisms involved in boosting enzyme activity and antifungal chemical compounds could elicit a defense mechanism comparable to SAR [183], and biochemical and physiological pathways may be implicated in the silicon-mediated disease resistance in plants.

4.3. Role of Defense-Related Enzymes

Silicon enhances disease resistance and delays the growth of invading pathogens by boosting the synthesis of phenolic compounds [184] such as flavonoids, which extend Rosa spp. tolerance to Podosphaera pannosa and Triticum spp. tolerance to Pyricularia oryzae [185,186]. Plant defense against pathogen invasion is known to rely heavily on phytoalexins. Silicon treatment boosted phytoalexin production, lowering the incidence of powdery mildew disease caused by Podosphaera xanthii in C. sativa plants and blast-induced by M. grisea in Oryza plants [79,187]. Applying Si to cucumber plants increases the production of flavonoid phytoalexins, which protect them from Podosphaera xanthii attack [58]. Similar findings have also been discovered in Oryza spp., where Si treatment boosts the production of phytoalexins, which enhance blast tolerance activities [79,187]. In perennial ryegrass (Magnaporthe oryzae) pathosystems, Si boosts the synthesis of phenolic acids, such as chlorogenic acid and flavonoids, and increases the expression of genes for phenylalanine ammonialyase (PAL) and lipoxygenase, providing tolerance capacity to gray leaf spot disease [94]. Polyphenol oxidase (PPO) has been discovered to play a role in lignin formation to acquire antibacterial effects in host plants [188].
Silicon boosts the activity of the enzymes POD and chitinase (CHT), which are important in plant–disease interactions. Peroxidase activity is also associated with cell wall reinforcement and lignin biosynthesis [189], while CHT is one of the primary PR proteins that causes lysis of the cell walls of numerous phytopathogenic fungi [25,37,189,190,191]. In Cryptococcus-laurentii–sweet-cherry interactions, enhanced PPO activity reduced infection seriousness in fruits, in the case of applied Si [192]. Pink rot induced by Trichothecium roseum has been found to be reduced in melon plants treated with sodium silicate due to increased POD activity [193]. Higher levels of CHT and POD appear to cause increased rice resistance to the brown spot disease (Bipolaris oryzae) following Si treatment [194]. The severity of pink rot (Trichothecium roseum) has been found to be reduced in sodium silicate-treated Chinese cantaloupe with increased POD and PAL activity [195]. According to Xavier et al. [196], greater CHT and POD activity regulated the improvement in wheat blast tolerance (Pyricularia oryzae). In Phaseolus vulgaris plants, increased SOD, APX, and GR activities reduced the seriousness of Colletotrichum lindemuthianum infection [197].
The higher concentration of Si in the aboveground plant parts suffer from various pathogens found to be linked with the most efficient antioxidative metabolic processes (up-regulated APX, CAT, GR, and SOD levels), thereby increasing the removal of ROS production [4,21,198]. Increased activities of PAL, POD, PLO, and CHT in the leaf sheaths of Si-supplied Oryza plants led to a reduction in the progression of sheath blight lesions (R. solani) [199]. Enhancing the activation of CHT, SOD, POD, and 1,3-glucanase in Cucumis melo plants reduced powdery mildew (Podosphaera xanthii) [200]. Perennial ryegrass grown in Si-amended soil demonstrated higher POD and PPO activities after Magnaporthe oryzae infection [94]. Rice resistance to Pyricularia oryzae enhances SOD, CAT, APX, GR, and lipoxygenase activities [198].

4.4. Genomics and Metabolomics Prospective

In plants, Si is linked to several physiological and biochemical activities, the stimulation of signal pathways, and the augmentation of disease resistance expression of genes with respect to plant–disease interaction [4,15,20]. Studies at the transcriptomic and proteomic levels have demonstrated Si’s defense responses in multiple patho-infections [151,155,176,201]. Silicon boosts the activity of WRKY transcription factor; causes the creation of an infection tolerance response to protein, ferritin, late embryogenesis abundant protein; and increases the activity of trehalose phosphatase, resulting in tomato plant resistance to Ralstonia solanacearum [2,7,152]. Similar results were obtained in rhizobacteria-inoculated tomato stems and tomato genotypes treated with Si after inoculation with R. solanacearum. A greater proportion of down-regulated expression of genes was also correlated to photosynthetic pathways [167]. Silicon changes cell wall structure, resulting in hypersensitive reactions, hormone synthesis, PR proteins, and antimicrobial compounds (Figure 2) [15,25].
The application of Si to S. lycopersicum plants inoculated with R. solanacearum resulted in a significant enhancement in protein levels, implying that Si mediates disease resistance through a relative shift in protein levels [19]. Silicon works as a pathogen resistance modulator in the host [15,18]. Under optimum conditions, there was no discernible difference in gene expression without Si application [202]. Kauss et al. [203] discovered that the creation of a proline-rich protein paired with the presence of silica near the site of pathogen penetration confers resistance to infection in C. sativus plant leaves. Brunings et al. [154] used a microarray to investigate the gene expression of Si-treated Oryza sativa and discovered that 221 genes, including some transcription factors (TFs), were differentially regulated compared to the control. Silicon boosted the photorespiration in Oryza plant leaves affected by Cochliobolus miyabeanus substantially, according to Agilent 44K oligo DNA arrays [204]. According to genome-wide analyses, the significant number of genes associated with host plant defense strategies were differentially expressed and unique in Solanum lycopersicum, Oryza sativa, Arabidopsis, and Triticum aestivum plants cultivated in Si-applied soil (Figure 2) [4,22,151,154,155,176,202].
The silicon-dependent microarray approach for expression of genes in Oryza spp. was first investigated by Watanabe et al. [202]. The addition of Si increased the level of a zinc finger protein homolog while decreasing the expression of chlorophyll a/b binding protein, metallothione-like protein, Xa21 gene family member, and carbonic anhydrase homolog [41,202]. Generally, zinc finger proteins act as major TFs for stress-related genes, which may enhance stress resistance capacity in Si-amended plants [41]. Transcription factors are the major regulators of downstream genes necessary for plant resistance to biotic stressors for stress-induced genes. Transcription factors are normally aided by specific cis-elements termed regulons, which are found in the target gene promoter section [41,205,206,207].
Transcription factors’ upregulation in response to Si might interact with cis elements in the promoter area of genes implicated in stress tolerance, triggering stress tolerance to biotic stressors. To protect the plants from stress, regulatory genes may also promote the transcription of genes linked with defense-related or stress-responsive pathways, such as the phenylpropanoid pathway or ABA-dependent or ABA-independent regulatory pathways [41]. Silicon increases the transcript levels of pathogenesis-related genes, i.e., PR1, PR2 (glucanse), PR3 (chitinase), and other TFs, resulting in increased tolerance efficiency to a variety of pathogenic diseases [4]. Genes involved in Si uptake and accumulation have been studied in several plants, including Hordeum vulgare, Zea mays, Cucurbita pepo, Triticum aestivum, Cucumis sativus, and Equisetum arvense [181,208,209]. The Si-influx transporters Lsi1 and Lsi6 are members of the aquaporin family and are linked to Si buildup in plant organs [41,210]. In comparison to Oryza sativa plants, the Si absorption capability of Lsi1 and Lsi2 differs substantially in a range of plant varieties [4,181,211].

5. Is Si Essential/Beneficial Element?

Japan and Korea were the first countries to understand the relevance of Si in crop yield, particularly in Oryza spp., in the 1950s. Researchers in other nations have identified Si as an agronomically important nutrient. In 2004, Brazil became the third country to recognize Si formally. According to the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, which regulates commercial fertilizer production, Si is an essential micronutrient. In various countries, sources of Si are only sold as soil amendments or conditioners rather than fertilizers because Si is still not accepted as an important mineral element. It seems to be a necessary plant nutrient based on the different criteria established by Epstein and Bloom [212]. The requirement of Si has been established in the literature for a wide range of plant species, demonstrating the importance of Si for plant health [7,9,31,213,214].

6. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

Recent advances have explored Si absorption, transport, and accumulation in higher plants as an element having several beneficial effects. Consequently, Si buildup in plants extend the dynamics of its absorption using specialized transporters. Its availability and accumulation in plants may improve plant performance and productivity during biotic and abiotic stressors under adverse environmental variables. Therefore, a battery of knowledge is yet to be acquired through experimentation by researchers in times to come to reveal and integrate physiological, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms regulated by Si transporters in plants in response to defense against biotic and abiotic stresses, as it seems prudent to consider Si application as normal and costless to upgrade plant performance, productivity, and biomass yield linked with physiological fitness for sustainable agriculture under the era of climate change.

Author Contributions

K.K.V. and X.-P.S.—conceptualization, methodology, data processing, resources, software, and writing—original draft; D.-D.T., D.-J.G., V.D.R., Z.-L.C., C.-S.Z., A.N. and R.K.S.—resources, software, and data processing; V.D.R., M.S. and T.M.—writing—review and editing; Y.-R.L.—conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing—review & editing, project administration, and funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financially supported by the Guangxi R and D Program Fund (GK17195100), the Fund for Guangxi Innovation Teams of Modern Agriculture Technology (gjnytxgxcxtd-20-01), the Fund of Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences (2021YT011), and the Youth Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (31901594).

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to the Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning, Guangxi, China, for providing the necessary facilities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Epstein, E. Silicon. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 1999, 50, 641–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Coskun, D.; Deshmukh, R.; Sonah, H.; Menzies, J.G.; Reynolds, O.; Ma, J.F.; Kronzucker, H.J.; Belanger, R.R. The controversies of silicon’s role in plant biology. New Phytol. 2019, 221, 67–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Verma, K.K.; Singh, P.; Song, X.P.; Malviya, M.K.; Singh, R.K.; Chen, G.L.; Solomon, S.; Li, Y.R. Mitigating climate change for sugarcane improvement: Role of silicon in alleviating abiotic stresses. Sugar Tech. 2020, 22, 741–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gulzar, N.; Ali, S.; Shah, M.A.; Kamili, A.N. Silicon supplementation improves early blight resistance in Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. by modulating the expression of defense-related genes and antioxidant enzymes. 3 Biotech. 2021, 11, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Prabha, S.; Durgalakshmi, D.; Rajendran, S.; Lichtfouse, E. Plant-derived silica nanoparticles and composites for biosensors, bioimaging, drug delivery and supercapacitors: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 1667–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Cooke, J.; Leishman, M.R. Consistent alleviation of abiotic stress with silicon addition: A meta analysis. Funct. Ecol. 2016, 30, 1340–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Frew, A.; Weston, L.A.; Reynolds, O.L.; Gurr, G.M. The role of silicon in plant biology: A paradigm shift in research approach. Ann. Bot. 2018, 121, 1265–1273. [Google Scholar]
  8. Verma, K.K.; Song, X.-P.; Lin, B.; Guo, D.-J.; Singh, M.; Rajput, V.D.; Singh, R.K.; Singh, P.; Sharma, A.; Malviya, M.K.; et al. Silicon induced drought tolerance in crop plants: Physiological adaptation strategies. Silicon 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Verma, K.K.; Song, X.-P.; Verma, C.L.; Chen, Z.-L.; Rajput, V.D.; Wu, K.-C.; Liao, F.; Chen, G.-L.; Li, Y.-R. Functional relationship between photosynthetic leaf gas exchange in response to silicon application and water stress mitigation in sugarcane. Biol. Res. 2021, 54, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Debona, D.; Rodrigues, F.A.; Datnoff, L.E. Silicon’s role in abiotic and biotic plantstresses. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 2017, 55, 85–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Etesami, H.; Jeong, B.R. Silicon (Si): Review and future prospects on the action mechanisms in alleviating biotic and abiotic stresses in plants. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 147, 881–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Savvas, D.; Ntatsi, G. Biostimulant activity of silicon in horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 66–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Epstein, E. Silicon in Plants: Facts vs. Concepts; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  14. Rodrigues, F.A.; Datnof, L.E. Silicon and Plant Diseases; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fauteux, F.; Remus-Borel, W.; Menzies, J.; Belanger, R. Silicon and plant disease resistance against pathogenic fungi. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2005, 249, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Datnoff, L.E.; Rodrigues, F.A.; Seebold, K.W. Silicon and plant disease. In Mineral Nutrition and Plant Disease; Datnoff, L.E., Elmer, W.H., Huber, D.M., Eds.; The American Phytopathological Society: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2007; pp. 233–246. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fortunato, A.A.; Rodrigues, F.Á.; Do Nascimento, K.J.T. Physiological and biochemical spects of the resistance of banana plants to Fusarium wilt potentiated by silicon. Phytopathology 2012, 102, 957–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Van Bockhaven, J.; De Vleesschauwer, D.; Hofte, M. Towards establishing roadspectrum broadspectrum disease resistance in plants: Silicon leads the way. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 1281–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, Y.; Liu, M.; Wang, L.; Lin, W.; Fan, X.; Cai, K. Proteomic characterization of silicon-mediated resistance against Ralstonia solanacearum in tomato. Plant Soil 2015, 387, 425–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vivancos, J.; Labbe, C.; Menzies, J.G.; Belanger, R.R. Silicon-mediated resistance of Arabidopsis against powdery mildew involves mechanisms other than the salicylic acid (SA)-dependent defence pathway. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2015, 16, 572–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Debona, D.; Rodrigues, F.A.; Rios, J.A.; Nascimento, K.J.T.; Silva, L.C. The effect of silicon on antioxidant metabolism of wheat leaves infected by Pyricularia oryza. Plant Pathol. 2014, 63, 581–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Akhtar, N.; Chandra, R.; Mazhar, Z. Silicon based defence mechanism in plants. Trends Biosci. 2018, 11, 32. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bayles, R.A.; Flath, K.; Hovmoller, M.S.; De Valla-vieille-Pope, C. Breakdown of the Yr17 resistance to yellow rust of wheat in northern Europe. Agronomie 2000, 20, 805–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Ma, Z.; Michailides, T.J. Advances in understanding molecular mechanisms of fungicide resistance and molecular detection of resistant genotypes in phytopathogenic fungi. Crop Prot. 2005, 24, 853–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sakr, N. The role of silicon (Si) in increasing plant resistance against fungal diseases. Hellenic Plant Prot. J. 2016, 9, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Ma, J.F.; Yamaji, N. Silicon uptake and accumulation in higher plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2006, 11, 392–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bakhat, H.F.; Bibi, N.; Zia, Z.; Abbas, S.; Hammad, H.M.; Fahad, S.; Ashraf, M.R.; Shah, G.M.; Rabbani, F.; Saeed, S. Silicon mitigates biotic stresses in crop plants: A review. Crop Prot. 2018, 104, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Song, X.P.; Verma, K.K.; Tian, D.D.; Zhang, X.Q.; Liang, Y.J.; Huang, X.; Li, C.N.; Li, Y.R. Exploration of silicon functions to integrate with biotic stress tolerance and crop improvement. Biol. Res. 2021, 54, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Epstein, E. Silicon: Its manifold roles in plants. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2009, 155, 155–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Verma, K.K.; Song, X.-P.; Zeng, Y.; Guo, D.-J.; Singh, M.; Rajput, V.D.; Malviya, M.K.; Wei, K.-J.; Sharma, A.; Li, D.-P.; et al. Foliar application of silicon boosts growth, photosynthetic leaf gas exchange, antioxidative response and resistance to limited water irrigation in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 166, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Verma, K.K.; Song, X.P.; Tian, D.D.; Singh, M.; Verma, C.L.; Rajput, V.D.; Singh, R.K.; Sharma, A.; Singh, P.; Malviya, M.K.; et al. Investigation of defensive role of silicon during drought stress induced by irrigation capacity in sugarcane: Physiological and biochemical characteristics. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 19811–19821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Datnoff, L.E.; Seebold, K.W.; Correa-V, F.J. The use of silicon for integrated disease management: Reducing fungicide applications and enhancing host plant resistance. Stud. Plant Sci. 2001, 8, 171–184. [Google Scholar]
  33. Joseph, E.K. Assessing the silicon status of rice (Oryza sativa). Master’s Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  34. Marschner, H. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  35. Dematte, J.L.I.; Paggiaro, C.M.; Beltrame, J.; Ribeiro, S. Uso de silicatos em canade-açúcar. Inf. Agronômicas 2011, 133, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  36. Meena, V.; Dotaniya, M.; Coumar, V.; Rajendiran, S.; Kundu, S.; Rao, A.S. A case for silicon fertilization to improve crop yields in tropical soils. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B Biol. Sci. 2014, 84, 505–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Zargar, S.M.; Mahajan, R.; Bhat, J.A.; Nazir, M.; Deshmukh, R. Role of silicon in plant stress tolerance: Opportunities to achieve a sustainable cropping system. 3 Biotech 2019, 9, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Wang, M.; Gao, L.; Dong, S.; Sun, Y.; Shen, Q.; Guo, S. Role of Silicon on Plant–Pathogen Interactions. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Xiong, L.; Schumaker, K.S.; Zhu, J.K. Cell signalling during cold, drought, and salt stress. Plant Cell 2002, 14, S165–S183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Rabbani, M.A.; Maruyama, K.; Abe, H.; Khan, M.A.; Katsura, K.; Ito, Y.; Yoshiwara, K.; Seki, M.; Shinozaki, K.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. Monitoring expression profiles of rice genes under cold, drought, and high-salinity stresses and abscisic acid application using cDNA microarray and RNA gel-blot analyses. Plant Physiol. 2003, 133, 1755–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Manivannan, A.; Ahn, Y.-K. Silicon regulates potential genes involved in major physiological processes in plants to combat stress. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Sallam, M.N. Insect Damage: Damage on Post-Harvest. AGSI/FAO: INPhO. 2008. Available online: http://www.fao.org/inpho/content/compend/text/ch02–01.htm (accessed on 12 July 2021).
  43. Aetiba, J.P.N. Field Evaluation of Levo 2.4 sl (Botanical) for the Management of Insect Pests of Eggplant (Solanum Melongena L.) and Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L. Moench). Master’s Thesis, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  44. Korth, K.L. Medicago truncatula mutants demonstrate the role of plant calcium oxalate crystals as an effective defense against chewing insects. Plant Physiol. 2006, 141, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Damalas, C. Understanding benefits and risks of pesticide use. Sci. Res. Essay 2009, 4, 945–949. [Google Scholar]
  46. Dos Santos, M.; Junqueira, A.R.; De Sá, V.M.; Zanúncio, J.; Serrão, J. Effect of silicon on the morphology of the midgut and mandible of tomato leaf miner Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) larvae. ISJ 2015, 12, 158–165. [Google Scholar]
  47. Huberty, A.F.; Denno, R.F. Plant water stress and its consequences for herbivorous insects: A new synthesis. Ecology 2004, 85, 1383–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Meyer, J.; Keeping, M. Impact of silicon in alleviating biotic stress in sugarcane in South Africa. Proc. S. Afr. Sugar Technol. Assoc. 2005, 23, 14–18. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ma, J.F.; Takahashi, E. Soil, fertilizer, and plant silicon research in Japan. Soil Fertil. Plant Silicon Res. Jpn. 2002, 107–180. [Google Scholar]
  50. Nakata, Y.; Ueno, M.; Kihara, J.; Ichii, M.; Taketa, S.; Arase, S. Rice blast disease and susceptibility to pests in a silicon uptake-deficient mutant lsi1 of rice. Crop Prot. 2008, 27, 865–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hunt, J.W.; Dean, A.P.; Webster, R.E.; Johnson, G.N.; Ennos, A.R. A novel mechanism by which silica defends grasses against herbivory. Ann. Bot. 2008, 102, 653–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Liang, Y.; Nikolic, M.; Bélanger, R.; Gong, H.; Song, A. Silicon in Agriculture; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  53. Forkpah, C.; Dixon, L.R.; Fahrbach, S.E.; Rueppell, O. Xenobiotic effects on intestinal stem cell proliferation in adult honey bee (Apis mellifera L) workers. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e91180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Lehane, M.; Billingsley, P. Biology of the Insect Midgut; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  55. Massey, F.P.; Ennos, A.R.; Hartley, S.E. Silica in grasses as a defense against insect herbivores: Contrasting effects on folivores and a phloem feeder. J. Anim. Ecol. 2006, 75, 595–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Harrewijn, P. Resistance Mechanisms of Plant Genotypes to Various Aphid Species. In Aphid-Plant Genotype Interactions; Campbell, R.K., Eikenbary, R.D., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1990; pp. 117–130. [Google Scholar]
  57. Dreyer, D.; Campbell, B. Chemical basis of host-plant resistance to aphids. Plant Cell Environ. 1987, 10, 353–361. [Google Scholar]
  58. Fawe, A.; Abou-Zaid, M.; Menzies, J.G.; Bélanger, R.R. Silicon mediated accumulation of flavonoid phytoalexins in cucumber. Phytopathology 1998, 88, 396–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Hodson, M.; Sangster, A. Observations on the distribution of mineral elements in the leaf of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), with particular reference to silicon. Ann. Bot. 1988, 62, 463–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ramirez, C.C.; Niemeyer, H.M. Salivation into sieve elements in relation to plant chemistry: The case of the aphid Sitobion fragariae and the wheat, Triticum aestivum. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1999, 91, 111–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Oliveira, M.R.V.; Henneberry, T.J.; Anderson, P. History, current status, and collaborative research projects for Bemisia tabaci. Crop Prot. 2001, 20, 709–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Correa, R.S.; Moraes, J.C.; Aaud, A.M.; Carvalho, G.A. Silicon and acibenzolar-S-methyl as resistance inducers in cucumber, against the whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) biotype B. Neotrop. Entomol. 2005, 34, 429–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Reynolds, O.L.; Keeping, M.G.; Meyer, J.H. Silicon-augmented resistance of plants to herbivorous insects: A review. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2009, 155, 171–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gomes, F.B.; Moraes, J.C.D.; Santos, C.D.D.; Goussain, M.M. Resistance induction in wheat plants by silicon and aphids. Sci. Agric. 2005, 62, 547–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yang, L.; Han, Y.; Li, P.; Li, F.; Ali, S.; Hou, M. Silicon amendment is involved in the induction of plant defense responses to a phloem feeder. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 4232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Tayabi, K.; Azizi, P. Influence of silica on rice yield and stem-borer (Chilo supremain) in Rasht/Iran. Pestcides 1984, 18, 20–22. [Google Scholar]
  67. Costa, R.R.; Moraes, J.C. Effects of silicon acid and of acibenzolar-S-methyl on Schizaphis graminum (Rondani) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in wheat plants. Neotrop. Entomol. 2006, 35, 834–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Moraes, J.C.; Goussain, M.M.; Basagli, M.A.; Carvalho, G.A.; Ecole, C.C.; Sampaio, M.V. Silicon influence on the tritrophic interaction: Wheat plants, the greenbug Schizaphis graminum (Rondani) (Hemiptera: Aphididae), and its natural enemies, Chrysoperla externa (Hagen) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) and Aphidius colemani Viereck (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Neotrop. Entomol. 2004, 33, 619–624. [Google Scholar]
  69. Salim, M.; Saxena, R. Iron, silica, and aluminum stresses and varietal resistance in rice: Effects on white backed plant hopper. Crop Sci. 1992, 32, 212–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Moraes, J.C.; Goussain, M.M.; Carvalho, G.A.; Costa, R.R. Feeding non-preference of the corn leaf aphid rhopalosiphum maidis (fitch, 1856) (hemiptera: Aphididae) to corn plants (Zea mays L.) treated with silicon. Cienc. E Agrotecnol. 2005, 29, 761–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Calatayud, P.A.; Njuguna, E.; Mwalusepo, S.; Gathara, M.; Okuku, G.; Kibe, A.; Musyoka, B.; Williamson, D.; Ongamo, G.; Juma, G.; et al. Can climate-driven change influence silicon assimilation by cereals and hence the distribution of lepidopteran stem borers in East Africa? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 224, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Redmond, C.T.; Potter, D.A. Silicon fertilization does not enhance creeping bentgrass resistance to cutworms and white grubs. Appl. Turfgrass Sci. 2007, 6, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  73. Calatayud, P.A.; Njuguna, E.; Juma, G. Silica in insect-plant interactions. Entomol. Ornithol. Herpetol. 2016, 5, e125. [Google Scholar]
  74. Gatarayiha, M.C.; Laing, M.D.; Miller, R.M. Combining applications of potassium silicate and Beauveria bassiana to four crops to control two spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2010, 56, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dicke, M.; Van Loon, J.J.A.; Soler, R. Chemical complexity of volatiles from plants induced by multiple attack. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2009, 5, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kvedaras, O.L.; An, M.; Choi, Y.S.; Gurr, G.M. Silicon enhances natural enemy attraction and biological control through induced plant defences. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2010, 100, 367–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Connick, V.J. The Impact of Silicon Fertilisation on the Chemical Ecology of Grapevine, Vitis Vinifera Constitutive and Induced Chemical Defences against Arthropod Pests and Their Natural Enemies. Master’s Thesis, Charles Sturt University, Albury–Wodonga, Bathurst, NSW, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  78. Reynolds, O.L.; Padula, M.P.; Zeng, R.; Gurr, G.M. Silicon: Potential to promote direct and indirect effects on plant defense against arthropod pests in agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Rodrigues, F.A.; McNally, D.J.; Datnoff, L.E.; Jones, J.B.; Labbe, C.; Benhamou, N.; Menzies, J.; Belanger, R. Silicon enhances the accumulation of diterpenoid phytoalexins in rice: A potential mechanism for blast resistance. Phytopathology 2004, 94, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Remus-Borel, W.; Menzies, J.G.; Bélanger, R.R. Silicon induces antifungal compounds in powdery mildew-infected wheat. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2005, 66, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cai, K.; Gao, D.; Luo, S.; Zeng, R.; Yang, J.; Zhu, X. Physiological and cytological mechanisms of silicon-induced resistance in rice against blast disease. Physiol. Plant 2008, 134, 324–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Liang, Y.; Chen, Q.i.n.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, W.; Ding, R. Exogenous silicon (Si) increases antioxidant enzyme activity and reduces lipid peroxidation in roots of salt-stressed barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). J. Plant Physiol. 2003, 160, 1157–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ye, M.; Song, Y.; Long, J.; Wang, R.; Baerson, S.R.; Pan, Z.; Zhu-Salzman, K.; Xie, J.; Cai, K.; Luo, S.; et al. Priming of jasmonate-mediated antiherbivore defense responses in rice by silicon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, E3631–E3639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Han, Y.; Lei, W.; Wen, L.; Hou, M. Silicon-mediated resistance in a susceptible rice variety to the rice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenée (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Dubin, H.J.; Rajaram, S. Breeding disease resistant wheats for tropical highlands and lowlands. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 1996, 34, 503–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Shephard, M.C. Screening for fungicides. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1997, 25, 189–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Pozza, E.A.; Pozza, A.A.A.; Botelho, D.M.D.S. Silicon in plant disease control. Rev. Ceres 2015, 62, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Menzies, J.; Bowen, P.; Ehret, D.; Glass, A.D.M. Foliar applications of potassium silicate reduce severity of powdery mildew on cucumber, muskmelon, and zucchini squash. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1992, 117, 902–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Miyake, Y.; Takahashi, E. Effect of silicon on the growth of solution-cultured cucumber plant comparative studies on silica nutrition in plants. Comparative studies on silica nutrition in plants. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 1982, 53, 23–29. [Google Scholar]
  90. Brugiére, T.; Exley, C. Callose-associated silica deposition in Arabidopsis. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2017, 39, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Chen, X.-Y.; Kim, J.-Y. Callose synthesis in higher plants. Plant Signal. Behav. 2009, 4, 489–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Ma, J.F. Role of silicon in enhancing the resistance of plants to biotic and abiotic stresses. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2004, 50, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Chérif, M.; Asselin, A.; Belanger, R.R. Defense responses induced by soluble silicon in cucumber roots infected by Pythium spp. Phytopathology 1994, 84, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Rahman, A.; Wallis, C.; Uddin, W. Silicon induced systemic defense responses in perennial ryegrass against infection by Magnaporthe oryzae. Phytopathology 2015, 105, 748–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. White, W.; White, P. Sugarcane borer resistance in sugarcane as affected by silicon applications in potting medium. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 2013, 33, 38–54. [Google Scholar]
  96. Sidhu, J.K.; Stout, M.J.; Blouin, D.C.; Datnoff, L.E. Effect of silicon soil amendment on performance of sugarcane borer, Diatraea saccharalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) on rice. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2013, 103, 656–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Vilela, M.; Moraes, J.C.; Alves, E.; Santos-Cividanes, T.M.; Santos, F.A. Induced resistance to Diatraea saccharalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) via silicon application in sugarcane. Rev. Colomb. Entomol. 2014, 40, 44–48. [Google Scholar]
  98. Kvedaras, O.L.; Keeping, M.G. Silicon impedes stalk penetration by the borer Eldana saccharina in sugarcane. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2007, 125, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Keeping, M.G.; Kvedaras, O.L.; Bruton, A.G. Epidermal silicon in sugarcane: Cultivar differences and role in resistance to sugarcane borer Eldana saccharina. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2009, 66, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Keeping, M.G.; Meyer, J.H.; Sewpersad, C. Soil silicon amendments increase resistance of sugarcane to stalk borer Eldana saccharina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) under field conditions. Plant Soil 2013, 363, 297–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Nikpay, A. Improving biological control of stalk borers in sugarcane by applying silicon as a soil amendment. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2016, 56, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Nikpay, A.; Soleyman Nejadian, E.; Goldasteh, S.; Farazmand, H. Response of sugarcane and sugarcane stalk borers Sesamia spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to calcium silicate fertilization. Neotrop. Entomol. 2015, 44, 498–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Nikpay, A.; Soleyman Nejadian, E.; Goldasteh, S.; Farazmand, H. Efficacy of silicon formulations on sugarcane stalk borers, quality characteristics and parasitism rate on five commercial varieties. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. India Sec. B Biol. Sci. 2017, 87, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Korndörfer, A.P.; Grisoto, E.; Vendramim, J.D. Induction of insect plant resistance to the spittlebug Mahanarva fimbriolata Stål (Hemiptera: Cercopidae) in sugarcane by silicon application. Neotrop. Entomol. 2011, 40, 387–392. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  105. Indhumathi, V.S.; Chandramani, P.; Jayaraj, J.; Chinniah, C.; Mahendran, P.P.; Kumutha, K. Effect of silicon sources against sugarcane early shoot borer Chilo infuscatellus Snellen. Ind. J. Entomol. 2019, 81, 206–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Indhumathi, V.S.; Chandramani, P.; Jayaraj, J.; Chinniah, C.; Mahendran, P.P.; Kumutha, K. Impact of silicon on sugarcane leafhopper, Pyrilla perpusilla Walker by enhancing parasitism of Epiricania melanoleuca (Fletcher). J. Biol. Control 2018, 32, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Nikpay, A.; Soleyman Nejadian, E. Field applications of silicon-based fertilizers against sugarcane yellow mite Oligonychus sacchari. Sugar Tech 2014, 16, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Nikpay, A.; Laane, H.M. Foliar amendment of silicic acid on population of yellow mite, Oligonychus sacchari (Acari: Tetranychidae) and its predatory beetle, Stethorus gilvifrons (Col.: Coccinellidae) on two sugarcane commercial varieties. Persian J. Acarol. 2020, 9, 57–66. [Google Scholar]
  109. Atencio, R.; Goebel, F.R.; Guerra, A. Effect of Silicon and Nitrogen on Diatraea tabernella Dyar in Sugarcane in Panama. Sugar Tech 2019, 21, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Hou, M.; Han, Y. Silicon-mediated rice plant resistance to the asiatic rice borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae): Effects of silicon amendment and rice varietal resistance. J. Econ. Entomol. 2010, 103, 1412–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Han, Y.Q.; Wen, G.H.; Peng, Z.; Zhang, D.Y.; Hou, M.L. Effects of silicon amendment on the occurrence of rice insect pests and diseases in a field test. J. Integr. Agric. 2018, 17, 2172–2181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. He, W.; Yang, M.; Li, Z.; Qiu, J.; Liu, F.; Qu, X.; Qiu, Y.; Li, R. High levels of silicon provided as a nutrient in hydroponic culture enhances rice plant resistance to brown planthopper. Crop Prot. 2015, 67, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Yang, G.Q.; Zhu, Z.F.; Hu, W.F.; Ge, L.Q.; Wu, J.C. Effects of foliar spraying of silicon and phosphorus on rice (Oryza sativa) plants and their resistance to the white-backed planthopper, Sogatella furcifera (Hemiptera: Delphacidae). Acta Entomol. Sin. 2014, 57, 927–934. [Google Scholar]
  114. Jeer, M.; Telugu, U.M.; Voleti, S.R.; Padmakumari, A.P. Soil application of silicon reduces of yellow stem borer, Scirpophaga incertullas (Walker) damage in rice. J. Appl. Entomol. 2017, 141, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Catalani, C.G.; Vieira, M.R.; Camargos, L.S.D.; Bomfim, N.C.P.; Agustini, J.A. Effects of potassium silicate application on papaya plants in the two spotted spider mite population. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 2017, 39, e840. [Google Scholar]
  116. Ramirez-Godoy, A.; Vera-Hoyos, M.P.; Jimenez-Beltran, N.; Restrepo-Diaz, H. Effect of Potassium Silicate Application on Populations of Asian Citrus Psyllid in Tahiti Lime. Am. Soc. Horticul. Sci. 2018, 28, 684–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Dogramaci, M.; Arthurs, S.P.; Chen, J.; Osborne, L. Silicon applications have minimal effects on Scirtothrips dorsalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) populations on pepper plant, Capsicum annum L. Fla. Entomol. 2013, 96, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Ribeiro, E.B.; Castellani, M.A.; Andrade Júnior, D.; Prado, R.M.; Souza, L.; Freire, D.S.; Savi, P.J. Biological aspects of the two- spotted spider mite on strawberry plants under silicon application. Hortic. Bras. 2021, 39, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Ranger, C.M.; Singh, A.P.; Frantz, J.M.; Cañas, L.; Locke, J.C.; Reding, M.E.; Vorsa, N. Influence of silicon on resistance of Zinnia elegans to Myzus persicae (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Environ. Entomol. 2009, 38, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Alyousuf, A.; Hamid, D.; Desher, M.A.; Nikpay, A.; Laane, H.M. Effect of Silicic Acid Formulation (Silicon 0.8%) on Two Major Insect Pests of Tomato under Greenhouse Conditions. Silicon 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Almeida, G.D.; Pratissoli, D.; Zanuncio, J.C.; Vicentini, V.B.; Holtz, A.M.; Serrão, J.E. Calcium silicate and organic mineral fertilizer increase the resistance of tomato plants to Frankliniella schultzei. Phytoparasitica 2009, 37, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Teixeira, N.C.; Valim, J.O.S.; Oliveira, M.G.A.; Campos, W.G. Combined effects of soil silicon and drought stress on host plant chemical and ultrastructural quality for leaf-chewing and sap-sucking insects. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2020, 206, 187–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Johnson, S.N.; Rowe, R.C.; Hall, C.R. Silicon is an inducible and effective herbivore defence against Helicoverpa punctigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in soybean. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2020, 110, 417–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Ferreira, R.; Moraes, J. Silicon influence on resistance induction against Bemisia tabaci biotype B (Genn.) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) and on vegetative development in two soybean cultivars. Neotrop. Entomol. 2011, 40, 495–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  125. Jeer, M.; Yele, Y.; Sharma, K.C.; Prakash, N.B. Exogenous application of different silicon sources and potassium reduces pink stem borer damage and improves photosynthesis, yield and related parameters in wheat. Silicon 2021, 13, 901–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.L.; Su, J.W.; Wang, Y.L.; Tan, J.F.; Han, Y.L. Effect of nitrogen application combined with silicon on density of Sitobion avenae and contents of biochemical materials of winter wheat at the late growth stage. J. Plant Nutr. Fert. 2013, 19, 832–839. [Google Scholar]
  127. Assis, F.A.; Moraes, J.C.; Assis, G.A.; Parolin, F.J.T. Induction of caterpillar resistance in sunflower using silicon and Acibenzolar-S-Methyl. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2015, 17, 543–550. [Google Scholar]
  128. Callis-Duehl, K.; Mcauslane, H.; Duehl, A.J.; Levey, D.J. The effects of silica fertilizer as an anti-herbivore defense in cucumber. J. Hort. Res. 2018, 25, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Islam, T.; Moore, B.D.; Johnson, S.N. Novel evidence for systemic induction of silicon defences in cucumber following attack by a global insect herbivore. Ecol. Entomol. 2020, 45, 1373–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Pinto, D.G.; Aguilar, M.A.G.; Souza, C.A.S.; Silva, D.M.; Siqueira, P.R.; Cao, J.R.; Zanetti, L.V. Alterações isiológicas após aplicação de silício em cacau e sua inluência na preferência por pulgões. Rev. Ceres 2012, 59, 360–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Peixoto, M.L.; Moraes, J.C.; Silva, A.A.; Assis, F.A. Efeito do silício na preferência para oviposição de Bemisia tabaci biótipo B (Genn.) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) em plantas de feijão (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Cienc. Agrotecnologia 2011, 35, 478–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Islam, T.; Moore, B.D.; Johnson, S.N. Silicon suppresses a ubiquitous mite herbivore and promotes natural enemy attraction by altering plant volatile blends. J. Pest Sci. 2021, 93, 41–48. [Google Scholar]
  133. Da Silva, V.F.; Moraes, J.C.; Melo, B.A. Influence of silicon on the development, productivity and infestation by insect pests in potato crops. Cienc. Agrotecnologia 2010, 34, 1465–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Nagaratna, W.; Kalleshwaraswamy, C.M.; Dhananjaya, B.C.; Sharanabasappa; Prakash, N.B. Effect of silicon and plant growth regulators on the biology and fitness of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, a recently invaded pest of maize in India. Silicon 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Moise, E.R.D.; McNeil, J.N.; Hartley, S.E.; Henry, H.A.L. Plant silicon effects on insect feeding dynamics are influenced by plant nitrogen availability. J. Appl. Entomol. 2019, 167, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Mir, S.H.; Rashid, I.; Hussain, B.; Reshi, Z.A.; Assad, R.; Sofi, I.A. Silicon Supplementation of Rescuegrass Reduces Herbivory by a Grasshopper. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Hogan, B.; McDermott, F.; Schmidt, O. Effects of silicon-rich soil amendments on growth, mortality and bark feeding damage of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) seedlings under field conditions. Scand. J. For. Res. 2018, 33, 550–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Massey, F.P.; Hartley, S.E. Physical defences wear you down: Progressive and irreversible impacts of silica on insect herbivores. J. Anim. Ecol. 2009, 78, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Belanger, R.R.; Benhamou, N.; Menzies, J.G. Cytological evidence of an active role of silicon in wheat resistance to powdery mildew (Blumeria graminis f. sp. tritici). Phytopathology 2003, 93, 402–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Hao, Z.; Fayolle, L.; Van Tuinen, D.; Chatagnier, O.; Li, X.; Gianinazzi, S.; Gianinazzi-Pearson, V. Local and systemic mycorrhiza-induced protection against the ectoparasitic nematode Xiphinema index involves priming of defence gene responses in grapevine. J. Exp. Bot. 2012, 63, 3657–3672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Belanger, R.R.; Vivancos, J.; Wilkinson, J.A.; Belzile, F.; Menzies, J.G. Silicon infl uence on biotic stress in plants. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Silicon in Agriculture, Stockholm, Sweden, 26–30 August 2014; p. 42. [Google Scholar]
  142. Heckman, J. Silicon: A Benefi cial Substance. Better Crops 2013, 97, 14–16. [Google Scholar]
  143. Datnoff, L.E.; Heckman, J.R. Silicon fertilizers for plant disease protection. In Proceedings of the 16th World Fertilizer Congress of CIECRio, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20–24 October 2014; pp. 37–38. [Google Scholar]
  144. Epstein, E. The anomaly of silicon in plant biology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1994, 91, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  145. Hattori, T.; Inanaga, S.; Araki, H.; An, P.; Morita, S.; Luxová, M.; Lux, A. Application of silicon enhanced drought tolerance in Sorghum bicolor. Physiol. Plant 2005, 123, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Dannon, E.A.; Wydra, K. Interaction between silicon amendment, bacterial wilt development and phenotype of Ralstonia solanacearum in tomato genotypes. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2004, 64, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Diogo, R.V.C.; Wydra, K. Silicon-induced basal resistance in tomato against Ralstonia solanacearum is related to modification of pectic cell wall polysaccharide structure. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2007, 70, 120–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Yang, M.; Gusev, E.P.; Ieong, M.; Gluschenkov, O.; Boyd, D.; Chan, K.K.; Kozlowski, P.; D’Emic, C.; Sicina, R.; Jamison, P.; et al. Performance dependence of CMOS on silicon substrate orientation for ultrathin oxynitride and H2O2 gate dielectrics. IEEE Electron. Device Lett. 2003, 24, 339–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Liang, Y.; Si, J.; Römheld, V. Silicon uptake and transport is an active process in Cucumis sativus. New Phytol. 2005, 167, 797–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Liang, Y.; Wong, J.W.C.; Wei, L. Silicon-mediated enhancement of cadmium tolerance in maize (Zea mays L.) grown in cadmium contaminated soil. Chemosphere 2005, 58, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Ghareeb, H.; Becker, A.; Iven, T.; Feussner, I.; Schirawski, J. Sporisorium reilianum infection changes inflorescence and branching architectures of maize. Plant Physiol. 2011, 156, 2037–2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  152. Ghareeb, H.; Bozsó, Z.; Ott, P.G.; Repenning, C.; Stahl, F.; Wydra, K. Transcriptome of silicon-induced resistance against Ralstonia solanacearum in the silicon non-accumulator tomato implicates priming effect. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2011, 75, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Ghareeb, H.; Bozsó, Z.; Ott, P.G.; Wydra, K. Silicon and Ralstonia solanacearum modulate expression stability of housekeeping genes in tomato. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2011, 75, 176–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Brunings, A.M.; Datnoff, L.E.; Ma, J.F.; Mitani, N.; Nagamura, Y.; Rathinasabapathi, B.; Kirst, M. Differential gene expression of rice in response to silicon and rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2009, 155, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Chain, F.; Côté-Beaulieu, C.; Belzile, F.; Menzies, J.; Bélanger, R. A comprehensive transcriptomic analysis of the effect of silicon on wheat plants under control and pathdogen stress conditions. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2009, 22, 1323–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  156. Tesfagiorgis, H.B.; Laing, M.D.; Annegarn, H.J. Evaluation of biocontrol agents and potassium silicate for the management of powdery mildew of zucchini. Biol. Control 2014, 73, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Conceicao, C.S.; Felix, K.C.S.; Mariano, R.L.R.; Medeiros, E.V.; Souza, E.B. Combined effect of yeast and silicon on the control of bacterial fruit blotch in melon. Sci. Hort. 2014, 174, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Kiirika, L.M.; Stahl, F.; Wydra, K. Phenotypic and molecular characterization of resistance induction by single and combined application of chitosan and silicon in tomato against Ralstonia solanacearum. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2013, 81, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Tesfagiorgis, H.B.; Annegarn, H.J. Evaluation of adjuvants for enhanced management of Podosphaera xanthii using potassium silicate and biocontrol agents. Crop Prot. 2013, 48, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Chang, S.J.; Tzeng, D.D.S.; Li, C.C. Effect of silicon nutrient on bacterial blight resistance of rice (Oryza sativa L.). In Second Silicon in Agriculture Conference; Matoh, T., Ed.; Press-Net: Kyoto, Japan, 2002; pp. 31–33. [Google Scholar]
  161. Dasgupta, N.; Nandy, P.; Sengupta, C.; Das, S. Protein and enzymes regulations towards salt tolerance of some Indian mangroves in relation to adaptation. Trees Struct. Funct. 2012, 26, 377–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Sahebi, M.; Hanafi, M.M.; Akmar, A.S.N.; Rafii, M.Y.; Azizi, P.; Tengoua, F.F.; Azwa, J.N.M.; Shabanimofrad, M. Importance of silicon and mechanisms of biosilica formation in plants. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 396010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Kelman, A. One hundred and one years of research on bacterial wilt. In Bacterial Wilt: Molecular and Ecological Aspects; Prior, P., Allen, C., Elphinstone, J., Eds.; INRA Editions: Paris, France, 1998; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Ram-Kishun, S.; Kishun, R. Loss in yield of tomato due to bacterial wilt caused by Pseudomonas solanacearum. Ind. Phytopathol. 1987, 40, 152–155. [Google Scholar]
  165. Yabuuchi, E.; Kosako, Y.; Yano, I.; Hotta, H.; Nishiuchi, Y. Transfer of two Burkholderia and an alcaligenes species to Ralstonia gen. Nov.: Proposal of Ralstonia pickettii (Ralston, palleroni and Doudoroff 1973) comb. Nov., Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith 1896) comb. Nov. and Ralstonia eutropha (Davis 1969) comb. Nov. Microbiol. Immunol. 1995, 39, 897–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Samuels, A.L.; Glass, A.D.M.; Ehret, D.L.; Menzies, J.G. Mobility and deposition of silicon in cucumber plants. Plant Cell Environ. 1991, 14, 485–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Kurabachew, H.; Stahl, F.; Wydra, K. Global gene expression of rhizobacteria-silicon mediated induced systemic resistance in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) against Ralstonia solanacearum. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2013, 84, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Ghanmi, D.; Mcnally, D.J.; Benhamou, N.; Menzies, J.G.; Bélanger, R.R. Powdery mildew of Arabidopsis thaliana: A pathosystem for exploring the role of silicon in plant-microbe interactions. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2004, 64, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Yoshida, S.; Ohnishi, Y.; Kitagishi, K. Histochemistry of silicon in rice plant III: The presence of cuticle-silica double layer in the epidermal tissue. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 1962, 8, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Inanaga, S.; Okasaka, A.; Tanaka, S. Does silicon exist in association with organic compounds in rice plant? Jpn. Soc. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 1995, 11, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Kim, S.; Kim, W.; Park, E.; Choi, D. Silicon-induced cell wall fortification of rice leaves: A possible cellular mechanism of enhanced host resistance to blast. Phytopathology 2002, 92, 1095–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  172. Hayasaka, T.; Fujii, H.; Ishiguro, K. The role of silicon in preventing appressorial penetration by the rice blast fungus. Phytopathology 2008, 98, 1038–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  173. Heine, G.; Tikum, G.; Horst, W. The effect of silicon on the infection by and spread of Pythium aphanidermatum in single roots of tomato and bitter gourd. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58, 569–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Pieterse, C.M.J.; Van der Does, D.; Zamioudis, C.; Leon-Reyes, A.; Van Wees, S.C.M. Hormonal modulation of plant immunity. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2012, 28, 489–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  175. Zhang, H.; Zhang, D.; Chen, J.; Yang, Y.; Huang, Z.; Huang, D.; Wang, X.C.; Huang, R. Tomato stress-responsive factor TSRF1 interacts with ethylene responsive element GCC box and regulates pathogen resistance to Ralstonia solanacearum. Plant Mol. Biol. 2004, 55, 825–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Fauteux, F.; Chain, F.; Belzile, F.; Menzies, J.G.; Bélanger, R.R. The protective role of silicon in the Arabidopsis–powdery mildew pathosystem. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 17554–17559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  177. Iwai, T.; Miyasaka, A.; Seo, S.; Ohashi, Y. Contribution of ethylene biosynthesis for resistance to blast fungus infection in young rice plants. Plant Physiol. 2006, 142, 1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  178. Chen, Y.Y.; Lin, Y.M.; Chao, T.C.; Wang, J.F.; Liu, A.C.; Ho, F.I.; Cheng, C.P. Virus-induced gene silencing reveals the involvement of ethylene-, salicylic acid- and mitogen-activated protein kinase-related defense pathways in the resistance of tomato to bacterial wilt. Physiol. Plant. 2009, 136, 324–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Kim, Y.H.; Khan, A.L.; Kim, D.H.; Lee, S.Y.; Kim, K.M.; Waqas, M.; Jung, H.Y.; Shin, J.H.; Kim, J.G.; Lee, I.J. Silicon mitigates heavy metal stress by regulating P-type heavy metal ATPases, Oryza sativa low silicon genes, and endogenous phytohormones. BMC Plant Biol. 2014, 14, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  180. De Vos, M.; Van Oosten, V.R.; Van Poecke, R.M.P.; Van Pelt, J.A.; Pozo, M.J.; Mueller, M.J.; Buchala, A.J.; Metraux, J.-P.; Van Loon, L.C.; Dicke, M.; et al. Signal signature and transcriptome changes of Arabidopsis during pathogen and insect attack. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2005, 18, 923–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  181. Jadhao, K.R.; Bansal, A.; Rout, G.R. Silicon amendment induces synergistic plant defense mechanism against pink stem borer (Sesamia inferens Walker.) in finger millet (Eleusine coracana Gaertn.). Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 4229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  182. Conrath, U. Systemic acquired resistance. Plant Signal. Behav. 2006, 4, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Cai, K.; Gao, D.; Chen, J.; Luo, S. Probing the mechanisms of silicon-mediated pathogen resistance. Plant Signal. Behav. 2009, 4, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  184. Fortunato, A.A.; Debona, D.; Bernardeli, A.M.A.; Rodrigues, F.A. Defense-related enzymes in soybean resistance to target spot. J. Phytopathol. 2015, 163, 731–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Shetty, R.; Jensen, B.; Shetty, N.P.; Hansen, M.; Hansen, C.W.; Starkey, K.R.; Jorgensen, H.J.L. Silicon induced resistance against powdery mildew of roses caused by Podosphaera pannosa. Plant Pathol. 2012, 61, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Silva, W.L.D.; Cruz, M.F.A.; Fortunato, A.A.; Rodrigues, F. Histochemical aspects of wheat resistance to leaf blast mediated by silicon. Sci. Agric. 2015, 72, 322–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  187. Rodrigues, F.A.; Jurick, W.M.; Datnoff, L.E.; Jones, J.B.; Rollins, J.A. Silicon infl uences cytological and molecular events in compatible and incompatible rice-Magnaporthe grisea interactions. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2005, 66, 144–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Song, A.; Xue, G.; Cui, P.; Fan, F.; Liu, H.; Yin, C.; Sun, W.; Liang, Y. The role of silicon in enhancing resistance to bacterial blight of hydroponic- and soil-cultured rice. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 24640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  189. Brisson, L.F.; Tenhaken, R.; Lamb, C. Function of oxidative crosslinking of cell wall structural proteins in plant disease resistance. Plant Cell 1994, 6, 1703–1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  190. Pan, S.; Ye, X. Induction of chitinases in tobacco plants systemically protected against blue mold by Peronospora tabacina or tobacco mosaic virus. Phytopathology 1992, 82, 119–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Shewry, P.R.; Lucas, J.A. Plant proteins that confer resistance to pests and pathogens. Adv. Bot. Res. 1997, 26, 135–192. [Google Scholar]
  192. Qin, G.Z.; Tian, S.P. Enhancement of biocontrol activity of Cryptococcus laurentii by silicon and the possible mechanisms involved. Phytopathology 2005, 95, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  193. Bi, Y.; Tian, S.P.; Guo, Y.R.; Ge, Y.H.; Qin, G.Z. Sodium silicate reduces postharvest decay on Hami melons: Induced resistance and fungistatic effects. Plant Dis. 2006, 90, 279–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  194. Dallagnol, L.J.; Rodrigues, F.A.; DaMatta, F.M.; Mielli, M.V.B.; Pereira, S.C. Deficiency in silicon uptake aff ects cytological, physiological, and biochemical events in the rice-Bipolaris oryzae interaction. Phytopathology 2011, 101, 92–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  195. Guo, Y.; Liu, L.; Zhao, J.; Bi, Y. Use of silicon oxide and sodium silicate for controlling Trichothecium roseum postharvest rot in Chinese cantaloupe (Cucumis melo L.). Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 42, 1012–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Xavier, M.S.F.; Rodrigues, F.A.; Domiciano, G.B.; Oliveira, H.V.; Silveira, P.R.; Moreira, W.R. Wheat resistance to leaf blast mediated by silicon. Aust. Plant Pathol. 2011, 40, 28–38. [Google Scholar]
  197. Polanco, L.R.; Rodrigues, F.A.; Nascimento, K.J.; Cruz, M.F.; Curvelo, C.R.; DaMatta, F.M.; Vale, F.X.R. Photosynthetic gas exchange and antioxidative system in common bean plants infected by Colletotrichum lindemuthianum and supplied with silicon. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2014, 39, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  198. Domiciano, G.P.; Cacique, I.S.; Freitas, C.C.; Filippi, M.C.C.; DaMatta, F.M.; Do Vale, F.X.R.; Rodrigues, F.A. Alterations in gas exchange and oxidative metabolism in rice leaves infected by Pyricularia oryzae are attenuated by silicon. Phytopathology 2015, 105, 738–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  199. Schurt, D.A.; Cruz, M.F.; Nascimento, K.J.; Filippi, M.C.; Rodrigues, F.A. Silicon potentiates the activities of defense enzymes in the leaf sheaths of rice plants infected by Rhizoctonia solani. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2014, 39, 457–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  200. Dallagnol, L.; Rodrigues, F.; Pascholati, S.; Fortunato, A.; Camargo, L. Comparison of root and foliar applications of potassium silicate in potentiating post-infection defences of melon against powdery mildew. Plant Pathol. 2015, 64, 1085–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Nwugo, C.C.; Huerta, A.J. The effect of silicon on the leaf proteome of rice (Oryza sativa L.) plants under cadmium-stress. J. Proteome Res. 2011, 10, 518–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Watanabe, S.; Shimoi, E.; Ohkama, N.; Hayashi, H.; Yoneyama, T.; Yazaki, J.; Fujii, F.; Shinbo, K.; Yamamoto, K.; Sakata, K.; et al. Identifi cation of several rice genes regulated by Si nutrition. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2004, 50, 1273–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Kauss, K.; Franke, R.; Gilbert, S.; Dietrich, A.; Kroger, N. Silica deposition by a strongly cationic proline-rich protein from systemically resistant cucumber plants. Plant J. 2003, 33, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  204. Van Bockhaven, J.; Spíchal, L.; Novák, O.; Strnad, M.; Asano, T.; Kikuchi, S.; Höfte, M.; DeVleesschauwer, D. Silicon induces resistance to the brown spot fungusCochliobolus miyabeanus by preventing the pathogen from hijacking the rice ethylenepathway. New Phytol. 2015, 206, 761–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Gao, J.P.; Chao, D.Y.; Lin, H.X. Understanding abiotic stress tolerance mechanisms: Recent studies on stress response in rice. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2007, 49, 742–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Lucas, S.; Durmaz, E.; Akpinar, B.A.; Budak, H. The drought response displayed by a DRE-binding protein from Triticum dicoccoides. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2011, 49, 346–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Qin, F.; Shinozaki, K.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. Achievements and challenges in understanding plant abiotic stress responses and tolerance. Plant Cell Physiol. 2011, 52, 1569–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  208. Gregoire, C.; Remus-Borel, W.; Vivancos, J.; Labbe, C.; Belzile, F.; Belanger, R.R. Discovery of a multigene family of aquaporin silicon transporters in the primitive plant Equisetum arvense. Plant J. 2012, 72, 320–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Wang, H.S.; Yu, C.; Fan, P.-P.; Bao, B.-F.; Li, T.; Zhu, Z.-J. Identification of two cucumber putative silicon transporter genes in Cucumis sativus. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2015, 34, 332–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Mitani, N.; Yamaji, N.; Ago, Y.; Iwasaki, K.; Ma, J.F. Isolation and functional characterization of an influx silicon transporter in two pumpkin cultivars contrasting in silicon accumulation. Plant J. 2011, 66, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  211. Ma, J.F.; Yamaji, N.; Mitani-Ueno, N. Transport of silicon from roots to panicles in plants. Proc. Jpn. Acad. Ser. B Phys. Biol. Sci. 2011, 87, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  212. Epstein, E.; Bloom, A.J. Mineral Nutrition of Plants: Principles and Perspectives, 2nd ed.; Sinuar Associates Inc. Publishers: Saunderland, MA, USA, 2005; pp. 201–240. [Google Scholar]
  213. Guntzer, F.; Keller, C.; Meunier, J.D. Benefits of plant silicon for crops: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  214. Verma, K.K.; Song, X.-P.; Li, D.-M.; Singh, M.; Rajput, V.D.; Malviya, M.K.; Minkina, T.; Singh, R.K.; Singh, P.; Li, Y.-R. Interactive role of silicon and plant—Rhizobacteria mitigating abiotic stresses: A new approach for sustainable agriculture and climate change. Plants 2020, 9, 1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 10 02163 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic representation of interaction of silicon with arthropod pests [78].
Figure 1. Schematic representation of interaction of silicon with arthropod pests [78].
Plants 10 02163 g001
Plants 10 02163 g002 550
Figure 2. The systematic summary of the Si-mediated regulation of central defense-related genes linked with mitigation of plant pathogenic diseases, i.e., biotic stress. PR-1, PR-2, PR-3—pathogenesis-related proteins; JERF—Jasmonate and ethylene-responsive factor 3; TSRF—tomato stress-responsive factor; ACCO-1—aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate oxidase; FD-1—ferredoxin-I; POD— peroxidase; WRKY II—WRKY group II transcription factor; LOXD—lipoxygenase; SOD—superoxide dismutase; CAT—catalase; APX—ascorbate peroxidase; GR—glutathione reductase [4,7,41,152]. Up and down arrows indicate the increase or decrease in activity.
Figure 2. The systematic summary of the Si-mediated regulation of central defense-related genes linked with mitigation of plant pathogenic diseases, i.e., biotic stress. PR-1, PR-2, PR-3—pathogenesis-related proteins; JERF—Jasmonate and ethylene-responsive factor 3; TSRF—tomato stress-responsive factor; ACCO-1—aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate oxidase; FD-1—ferredoxin-I; POD— peroxidase; WRKY II—WRKY group II transcription factor; LOXD—lipoxygenase; SOD—superoxide dismutase; CAT—catalase; APX—ascorbate peroxidase; GR—glutathione reductase [4,7,41,152]. Up and down arrows indicate the increase or decrease in activity.
Plants 10 02163 g002
Table
Table 1. Effects of silicon on plant pests and related resistance mechanisms.
Table 1. Effects of silicon on plant pests and related resistance mechanisms.
CropPestsPest SpeciesAdaptive MechanismsSource
Sugarcane
(Saccharum officinarum L.)		Stalk borerDiatraea saccharalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae)Enhanced Si accumulation and relative growth rate and decreased boring success of sugarcane borer larvae and feeding injury. Upgraded cuticle thickening and crystals accumulation on the leaf stomata.[95,96,97]
African stalk borerEldana saccharina (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)Si-amended plants significantly enhanced the accumulation of Si in soil and plant organs relative to normal plants, and the outer rind was harder than the control. Treated plants reduced borer penetration, stalk injury, and gain of larval mass. Si directly supported the resistance of E. saccharina through a decreased larval growth rate and feeding injury to the crop plants and indirectly supported it by delayed stalk penetration, resulting mostly in an enhanced exposure time frequency of mature larvae to natural enemies.[98,99,100]
Stalk borerSesamia spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)Si increased the tolerance efficiency of sugarcane against stalk borers. The significant loss on borer population and damage but the major loss in the stalk injury (%), bored internodes, moth exit holes, and length of borer tunnel and number of larvae and pupae per 100 stalks were monitored in the sensitive cultivar. It enhanced cane and juice quality parameters and efficiency of parasitism.[101,102,103]
SpittlebugMahanarva fimbriolata (Hem.: Cercopidae)Si enhanced the uptake, accumulation, and nymphal mortality. It totally depended on the sugarcane cultivars. The duration of pre-oviposition, fecundity, and egg viability were found to be unchanged by Si amendment.[104]
Internode borerChilo infuscatellus (Lepidoptera: Crambidae)Si reduced the damage incidences and was significantly effective against early shoot borers. [105]
LeafhopperPyrilla perpusillaThe Pyrilla population was less in the Si-applied field, and parasitism (%) increased. The Pyrilla population reduced by an increment of E. melanoleuca parasitism with Si amendment.[106]
Yellow miteOligonychus sacchari (Acari: Tetranychidae)Significant differences were found in Si and control groups of mite and predatory beetle populations. The population density of mites decreased in all the Si-applied categories as compared to control plants. It is the potential element for the management of mite injury and should be applied with other management approaches.[107,108]
Stalk borerDiatraea tabernella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) The amendment of Si-based products decreased internodes borer (about 50%) loss. [109]
Rice
(Oryza sativa L.)		Asiatic stem borerChilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Si-applied plants enhanced Si concentration relative to normal plants and reduced borer penetration, weight increase, stem injury, and prolonged penetration time and larval behavior. Plant mortality by stem borer, leaf folder, and population size of the plant hopper were positively reduced. The results showed that the application of Si may provide substantial protective capacity from a few of the rice pests during field conditions. [110,111]
Brown planthopperNilaparvata lugens (Hemiptera: Delphacidae)The higher dose of Si had no symptoms on the morphological traits. It is the major element that restricts brown planthopper (BPH) response in rice–BPH interactions, and it is more beneficial for non-pesticide BPH control. [112]
White-backed planthopperSogatella furcifera (Hemiptera: Delphacidae)Increased Si content in the upper and lower sides of rice leaves in the foliar spray of Si. Sufficient Si cells were found around the stomata. The oxalic acid and soluble sugar content were enhanced significantly. The number of eggs laid by per female of S. furciferafed was reduced.[113]
Yellow stem borerScirpophaga incertulas (Lepidoptera:Crambidae) All the soil treatments reduced damage by YSB at vegetative and reproductive phases across five varieties as compared to the control. Si revealed the enhanced deposition of Si in cell walls and a two- to five-fold increase in Si content across treatments. The histological studies showed the rupture of the peritrophic membrane, increased vacuolation, disintegration of columnar cells, and discharge of cellular contents into the gut lumen due to abrasion of midgut epithelium, as compared to the control where the columnar cells and midgut lining were intact. [114]
Papaya
(Carica papaya L.)		Spotted spider miteTetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae)Plant leaves were performed to investigate the physiological parameters that indicate the activation of the defense strategy of plants. Si induced the formation of plant defense substances decreasing, the net reproduction rate. [115]
Tahiti Lime
(Citrus spp.)		Asian Citrus PsyllidDiaphorina citri (Homoptera: Liviidae) The use of Si in seedlings and trees infected Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) oviposition, causing a loss of about 60%. It did not affect the macro-micro nutrient profile of plants, with the exception of the foliar application. [116]
Pepper
(Capsicum annum L.)		Chilli ThripsScirtothrips dorsalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae)A very low impact of Si on the leaf morphological injury and numbers of thrips restored from diseased plants were observed. Jasmonic acid as a plant defense elicitor did not change the proportion of the leaves that sustained thrips injury. Plant roots absorb Si in the soil but are not distributed or translocated to the other plant organs, i.e., leaf and shoot. No significant effects were observed in the plant biomass. [117]
Strawberry
(Fragaria × ananassa)		Spotted spider miteTetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) Si prolonged the frequency of some immature phases of the mites in parental and F1 generations; no changes were found at the complete biological cycle. The time of pre-oviposition and oviposition and the longevity of the parental generation and the longevity and oviposition of the F1 generation of the two-spotted spider mite were negatively affected by the addition of Si. [118]
Zinnia elegansAphidMyzus persicae (Hemiptera: Aphididae) No changes were found at the duration of the pre-reproductive and survivorship of M. persicae by Si, but the total cumulative fecundity and the intrinsic rate of increase (r(m)) were slightly decreased on Z. elegans plants subjected to Si. Si content increased in plant leaves. Phenolics compounds and guaiacol peroxidase (GPX) activity were slightly affected. [119]
Tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.)		Silver whiteflyBemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae)Si reduced the population of immature whiteflies on tomato plants. Foliar spray was more efficient in decreasing the density of population of these pests as compared to Si irrigation. [120]
Leaf minerTuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae)A potential impact of Si on crops for increasing plant vigor and tolerance to pest injury was observed. Si reduced the population of immature tomato leaf miners on tomato crops. [120]
Tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)		Cotton thripsFrankliniella schultzei (Thysanoptera: Thripidae)Si enhanced the number of lesions and the mortality of nymphs, reduced the injury on tomato leaves, and increased the tolerance strategy to pests.[121]
Collard greens
(Brassica oleracea)		Diamond back mothPlutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) Nutritional variations mediated by stress and Si in fiber, LWC, soluble N, and glucosinolates did not enhance insect activities in any feeding guild. [122]
Cabbage aphidBrevicoryne brassicae (Hemiptera: Aphididae) Si improved the resistance capacity of stress and herbivore stresses. [122]
Soybean
(Glycine max L.)		BudwormHelicoverpa punctigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Herbivory decreased leaf biomass in Si-applied and normal plants compared to herbivore-free plants. Si and herbivory enhanced the Si level. It decreased H. punctigera relative growth rates. [123]
Silver whiteflyBemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) No effects were found on silverleaf whitefly oviposition, but significant mortality in nymphs was found. Si enhanced the resistance degree to silverleaf whitefly and down-regulated the phenolic compounds, but no effect on lignin formation and the vegetative growth phase was observed. However, an enhanced tolerance capacity to plants was observed. [124]
Wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.)		Pink stem borerSesamia inferens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)Si enhanced the photosynthetic performance, biomass, and productivity. [125]
AphidSchizaphis graminum (Hemiptera: Aphididae) The aphid’s intrinsic rate of population increased after seedling emergence and the enzymatic activities, i.e., POD, PPLO, and PAL associated in the plant defense mechanisms. [64]
Grain AphidSitobion avenae (Hemiptera: Aphididae)The density of wheat aphids was enhanced during N application, which closely correlates to the losses of the average soluble sugar and total phenolic content. The effects of the Si on the reduction in population density of aphids would be associated to the increment of the average contents of soluble sugar, phenolic compounds, and tannin contents of wheat leaves and ears.[126]
Sunflower
(Helianthus annuus L.)		Bordered patchChlosyne lacinia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)Reduced weight of the caterpillars at the first and second week of age was observed. Si increased the distribution of the element and decreased lignin content. Negative correlations were found in Si and larval weight. It is an alternative strategy that can effectively integrate into the management of pest in crops.[127]
Cucumber
(Cucumis sativa L.)		Silver whiteflyBemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) Si-treated plant leaves were less injured as compared to normal plants. No positive signs were found in treated and normal plants regarding lignin content, nutritional elements, water status, trichome density, and carbon and nitrogen levels. Volatile organic compounds and indole content increased for plant defense priming, and cellulose content was reduced. [62,128]
Cucumber
(Cucumis sativus L.)		Cotton BollwormHelicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)Herbivory positively enhanced the accumulation of Si in infected plant leaves. The use of Si upregulated Si and the C:N ratio while reducing the larval relative consumption and the relative growth rate in the in situ assays. [129]
Cocoa
(Toxoptera aurantii)		AphidToxoptera aurantii (Aphididae) The efficiency of the chlorophyll fluorescence yield of PSII (Fv/Fm), photosynthetic responses, and total soluble phenol activities were significantly enhanced. The amendment of Si did not affect the morphological performance index. [130]
Bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) 		Silver whiteflyBemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) No changes were observed in the oviposition of the whitefly and the nymph development as well as the phenol levels after Si amendment. [131]
Bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.)		Spider miteTetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) Si suppressed the T. urticae egg-laying, population growth, and leaflet damage and slightly mitigated T. urticae-induced losses in photosynthetic responses. [132]
Potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.)		BeetleDiabrotica speciosa (Chrysomelidae)No significant interactions were found between Si and crop parameters. The incidence of beetles and aphids was not influenced by Si application and neither was the growth, development, and final output of the crop plants. [133]
Grape
(Vitis vinifera L.)		Grapevine mothPhalaenoides glycinae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)Application of Si may also indirectly affect plant pests through induced chemical defenses by altering and increasing the production of herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs). It plays a major role in induced plant defense strategies activated by herbivore feeding or oviposition.[77]
Maize
(Zea mays L.)		Fall armywormSpodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)Si reduced the larval weight, pre-pupal weight, pupal weight and larval survival, and fecundity and fertility. The biological characteristics of S. frugiperda were non-significantly correlated with increasing levels of Si, phenols, tannins, and potassium levels in plant leaves. [134]
True armywormPseudeletia unipuncta (Lepi-doptera: Noctuidae)Effectively decreased the palatability and digestibility of the plant leaves and thus impacted nutrient uptake by insect herbivores. The addition of Si increased larval mortality as compared to the control because early instars with poorly developed mandibles could not feed effectively.[135]
Rescuegrass
(Bromus catharticus)		GrasshopperOxya grandis (Orthoptera: Acrididae)Si enhanced more than 12 times the higher supplementation treatments. The maximum dose of Si in Si-rich plants did not affect the morphological structure of the phytoliths. [136]
Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) Large pine weevilHylobius abietis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)No significant effects were shown on the growth or mortality of plants after Si application. Bark Si content was found to be similar as compared to normal seedlings.[137]
Ryegrass
(Lolium perenne L.)		African ArmywormSpodoptera exempta (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)Si decreased the digestibility of plant leaves and decreased the functionality with S. exempta-ingested food to body mass and the amount of nitrogen absorbed from their food, leading to a decreased rate of insect growth. [138]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Verma, K.K.; Song, X.-P.; Tian, D.-D.; Guo, D.-J.; Chen, Z.-L.; Zhong, C.-S.; Nikpay, A.; Singh, M.; Rajput, V.D.; Singh, R.K.; et al. Influence of Silicon on Biocontrol Strategies to Manage Biotic Stress for Crop Protection, Performance, and Improvement. Plants 2021, 10, 2163. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10102163

AMA Style

Verma KK, Song X-P, Tian D-D, Guo D-J, Chen Z-L, Zhong C-S, Nikpay A, Singh M, Rajput VD, Singh RK, et al. Influence of Silicon on Biocontrol Strategies to Manage Biotic Stress for Crop Protection, Performance, and Improvement. Plants. 2021; 10(10):2163. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10102163

Chicago/Turabian Style

Verma, Krishan K., Xiu-Peng Song, Dan-Dan Tian, Dao-Jun Guo, Zhong-Liang Chen, Chang-Song Zhong, Amin Nikpay, Munna Singh, Vishnu D. Rajput, Rupesh Kumar Singh, and et al. 2021. "Influence of Silicon on Biocontrol Strategies to Manage Biotic Stress for Crop Protection, Performance, and Improvement" Plants 10, no. 10: 2163. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10102163

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop