Abstract
Abstract Symbiotic nitrogen fixation potential in common bean is considered to be low in comparison with other grain legumes. However, it may be possible to improve the nitrogen fixation potential of common bean using efficient rhizobia. In order to improve osmotic stress tolerance of a drought-sensitive common bean cultivar (COCOT) consumed in Tunisia, plants were inoculated either by the reference strain Rhizobium tropici CIAT 899 or by inoculation with rhizobia isolated from native soils Rhizobium gallicum 8a3. Fifteen days after sowing, osmotic stress was applied by means of 25 mM mannitol (low stress level) or by 75 mM mannitol (high stress level). Fifteen days after treatment plants were harvested and different physiological and biochemical parameters were analysed. Results showed no significant differences between the studied symbioses under control conditions. However after exposure to osmotic stress our results showed better tolerance of COCOT to osmotic stress when inoculated with the native R. gallicum 8a3. This can be partially explained by better water-use efficiency in both leaves and nodules, better relative water content in nodules and better efficiency in utilization of rhizobial symbiosis as compared with COCOT-CIAT 899 symbiosis. Hence, the present study suggested the better use of native soil isolated strains for the inoculation of common bean in order to improve its performance and nitrogen fixation potential under stressful conditions.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 6
Claim · model-written summary
The symbioses did not differ significantly under control conditions.
- Taxon
- common bean
Phaseolus vulgarise1 - Interactor
- Rhizobium gallicum 8a3Rhizobium gallicume2symbiont
- Outcome
- differences between the studied symbiosese0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant differences between the studied symbioses under control conditions”
e1“common bean cultivar (COCOT)”
e2“Rhizobium gallicum 8a3”
Claim · model-written summary
Native R. gallicum 8a3 inoculation improved COCOT osmotic stress tolerance.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise1
- Material
- COCOTe0
- Treatment
- inoculated with the native R. gallicum 8a3e0
- Interactor
- R. gallicum 8a3Rhizobium gallicume0symbiont
- Outcome
- tolerance of COCOT to osmotic stresse0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- COCOT-CIAT 899 symbiosise2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“better tolerance of COCOT to osmotic stress when inoculated with the native R. gallicum 8a3”
e1“common bean cultivar (COCOT)”
e2“COCOT-CIAT 899 symbiosis”
Claim · model-written summary
Native strain inoculation gave better water-use efficiency in leaves and nodules.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise1
- Treatment
- inoculated with the native R. gallicum 8a3e2
- Interactor
- R. gallicum 8a3Rhizobium gallicume2symbiont
- Outcome
- water-use efficiency in both leaves and nodulese0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- COCOT-CIAT 899 symbiosise3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“better water-use efficiency in both leaves and nodules”
e1“common bean cultivar (COCOT)”
e2“inoculated with the native R. gallicum 8a3”
e3“COCOT-CIAT 899 symbiosis”
Claim · model-written summary
Native strain inoculation gave better relative water content in nodules.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise1
- Treatment
- inoculated with the native R. gallicum 8a3e2
- Interactor
- R. gallicum 8a3Rhizobium gallicume2symbiont
- Outcome
- relative water content in nodulese0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- COCOT-CIAT 899 symbiosise3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“better relative water content in nodules”
e1“common bean cultivar (COCOT)”
e2“inoculated with the native R. gallicum 8a3”
e3“COCOT-CIAT 899 symbiosis”
Claim · model-written summary
Native strain inoculation gave better efficiency in utilization of rhizobial symbiosis.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise1
- Treatment
- inoculated with the native R. gallicum 8a3e2
- Interactor
- R. gallicum 8a3Rhizobium gallicume2symbiont
- Outcome
- efficiency in utilization of rhizobial symbiosise0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- COCOT-CIAT 899 symbiosise0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“better efficiency in utilization of rhizobial symbiosis as compared with COCOT-CIAT 899 symbiosis”
e1“common bean cultivar (COCOT)”
e2“inoculated with the native R. gallicum 8a3”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggested using native soil strains to inoculate common bean under stress.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Interactor
- native soil isolated strainse0symbiont
- Outcome
- use of native soil isolated strains for the inoculation of common beane0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“better use of native soil isolated strains for the inoculation of common bean in order to improve its performance and nitrogen fixation potential under stressful conditions”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · physiology: water · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →inoculation · disease · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 39 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
64 papers more in this group
See all 68 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.