Paper · 2012 · ˜The œjournal of American science

Synergistic Effect between Azotobacter vinelandii and Streptomyces sp. Isolated From Saline Soil on Seed Germination and Growth of Wheat Plant

Magda M. Aly; Hameda El-Sayed; Ahmed El Sayed; et al.

12
claims
19
verbatim quotes
26
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Twenty-two bacterial isolates were obtained from rhizosphere of wheat plants, grown in saline soil in western region, Saudi Arabia. All the isolates were grown in broth media supplemented with 2 mg/ml L-tryptophan and screened for indole acetic acid production. Out of the isolated bacteria, 17 isolates showed positive results for IAA production. The isolates M1 and M10 were selected and identified using morphological, physiological and biochemical characters as Azotobacter vinelandii‏ MM1 and Streptomyces sp. MM10. Soaking wheat seeds in either Azotobacter vinelandii (AZ) or Streptomyces sp. (ST) or both culture filtrates (AZ+ST) increased significantly wheat germination. Moreover, soil inoculations with the bacterial cells of AZ, ST or AZ+ST increased the growth and development of wheat in normal and saline conditions. There were significant increases in root depth, shoot length and shoot and root dry weights compared to the control. The amounts of phosphate, N, Mg, K and proteins present in wheat shoots, grown in normal and saline soil were also increased by soil inoculation. No significant effect on Ca was found by soil inoculation under non-saline conditions. Increasing NaCl concentration increased proline content but soil inoculation decreased the adverse effects of NaCl and decreased proline concentration compared to control at the same salinity level. In conclusion, results of this study indicated that Streptomyces, Azotobacter vinelandii or both could be utilized as biofertilizer in saline soils. (Magda M. Aly, Hameda El-Sayed Ahmed El Sayed, and Samyah Jastaniah. Synergistic Effect between Azotobacter vinelandii and Streptomyces sp. Isolated From Saline Soil on Seed Germination and Growth of Wheat Plant. J Am Sci 2012;8(5):667-676). (ISSN: 1545-1003).http://www.americanscience.org. 72

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 12

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seventeen wheat-rhizosphere bacterial isolates produced IAA.

Outcome
IAA productione0
Value
17 isolatese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“17 isolates showed positive results for IAA production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 292–346 · show in text ↑
e1

“rhizosphere of wheat plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 49–76 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat seed soaking with Azotobacter vinelandii culture filtrate significantly increased germination.

Treatment
Soaking wheat seeds in either Azotobacter vinelandii (AZ)e0
Interactor
Azotobacter vinelandiiAzotobacter vinelandiie0symbiont
Outcome
wheat germinatione0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soaking wheat seeds in either Azotobacter vinelandii (AZ) or Streptomyces sp. (ST) or both culture filtrates (AZ+ST) increased significantly wheat germination”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 521–679 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat seed soaking with Streptomyces sp. culture filtrate significantly increased germination.

Treatment
Streptomyces sp. (ST)e0
Interactor
Streptomyces sp.Streptomyces sp.e0symbiont
Outcome
wheat germinatione0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Streptomyces sp.
Streptomyces sp. · Interactor · picture of its genus (no picture of exactly this name)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soaking wheat seeds in either Azotobacter vinelandii (AZ) or Streptomyces sp. (ST) or both culture filtrates (AZ+ST) increased significantly wheat germination”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 521–679 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat seed soaking with combined AZ and ST filtrates significantly increased germination.

Treatment
both culture filtrates (AZ+ST)e0
Interactor
Azotobacter vinelandiiAzotobacter vinelandiie1symbiont
Second interactor
Streptomyces sp.Streptomyces sp.e1symbiont
Outcome
wheat germinatione0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Streptomyces sp.
Streptomyces sp. · Second interactor · picture of its genus (no picture of exactly this name)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“both culture filtrates (AZ+ST) increased significantly wheat germination”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 607–679 · show in text ↑
e1

“Azotobacter vinelandii (AZ) or Streptomyces sp. (ST)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 551–603 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil inoculation with AZ, ST or both increased wheat root depth, shoot length and dry weights versus control.

Treatment
soil inoculations with the bacterial cells of AZ, ST or AZ+STe0
Outcome
root depth, shoot length and shoot and root dry weightse0
Direction
increasese0
Qualifier
normal and saline conditionse0
Comparator
the controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“soil inoculations with the bacterial cells of AZ, ST or AZ+ST increased the growth and development of wheat in normal and saline conditions. There were significant increases in root depth, shoot length and shoot and root dry weights compared to the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 691–948 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil inoculation increased phosphate, N and Mg in wheat shoots.

Organ / stage
wheat shootse0
Treatment
soil inoculatione0
Outcome
amounts of phosphate, N, Mge0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The amounts of phosphate, N, Mg, K and proteins present in wheat shoots, grown in normal and saline soil were also increased by soil inoculation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 949–1093 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil inoculation increased K and proteins in wheat shoots.

Treatment
soil inoculatione0
Outcome
K and proteins present in wheat shootse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The amounts of phosphate, N, Mg, K and proteins present in wheat shoots, grown in normal and saline soil were also increased by soil inoculation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 949–1093 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil inoculation had no significant effect on wheat Ca under non-saline conditions.

Treatment
soil inoculatione0
Outcome
Cae0
Direction
No significant effecte0
Qualifier
non-saline conditionse0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No significant effect on Ca was found by soil inoculation under non-saline conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1095–1180 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat shoots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1008–1020 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing NaCl concentration increased wheat proline content.

Treatment
NaCl concentratione0
Outcome
proline contente0
Direction
increasede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Increasing NaCl concentration increased proline content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1182–1237 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat shoots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1008–1020 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil inoculation decreased wheat proline relative to control at the same salinity.

Treatment
soil inoculatione0
Outcome
proline concentratione0
Direction
decreasede0
Qualifier
same salinity levele0
Comparator
controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“soil inoculation decreased the adverse effects of NaCl and decreased proline concentration compared to control at the same salinity level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1242–1379 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat shoots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1008–1020 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil inoculation decreased the adverse effects of NaCl on wheat.

Treatment
soil inoculatione0
Outcome
adverse effects of NaCle0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“soil inoculation decreased the adverse effects of NaCl”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1242–1296 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat shoots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1008–1020 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors propose Streptomyces, Azotobacter vinelandii or both as biofertilizers for saline soils.

Outcome
could be utilized as biofertilizer in saline soilse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Streptomyces, Azotobacter vinelandii or both could be utilized as biofertilizer in saline soils”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1433–1528 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat shoots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1008–1020 · show in text ↑

Streptomyces · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 11 positive, 1 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

Azotobacter vinelandii · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

pathogen product · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

22 papers: 10 positive, 12 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

18 papers more in this group

See all 22 papers →

inoculation · organism · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

32 papers: 24 positive, 8 negative or no effect

23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

28 papers more in this group

See all 32 papers →

inoculation · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

105 papers: 95 positive, 10 negative or no effect

94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

101 papers more in this group

See all 105 papers →

inoculation · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

277 papers: 263 positive, 14 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 263 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

273 papers more in this group

See all 277 papers →

application · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

307 papers: 273 positive, 34 negative or no effect

272 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

303 papers more in this group

See all 307 papers →

inoculation · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

532 papers: 476 positive, 56 negative or no effect

475 papers in the same direction as this paper · 55 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

528 papers more in this group

See all 532 papers →

8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.