Paper · 2015 · African Journal of Agricultural Research

Characterization of bacterial strains and their impact on plant growth promotion and yield of wheat and microbial populations of soil

Kumar Ashok; Ram Maurya Bihari; Raghuwanshi Richa

8
claims
15
verbatim quotes
20
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The aim of this research work is to evaluate the potentiality of bacterial strains isolated from rhizosphere of various cropping systems on growth, yield and soil microbial populations at harvest of wheat under pot and field experiments. Bacterial isolates, isolated from rhizosphere of various cropping systems. Morphological, biochemical and molecular characterization of bacterial strains were done. All the bacterial strains were rod shaped and ammonia producers. Most of the strains were Gram’s +ve and showed positive to catalase, VP, MR tests and HCN production. Pseudomonas aeuroginosa showed significantly lowest pH 4.42 of broth and solubilized 160.34 µgml-1 tri-calcium phosphates. Enterobacter sp. produced maximum 27.06 µgml-1 IAA at 100 µgml-1 tryptophan. All the bacterial strains showed >97% similarity with strains already submitted to NCBI Gene bank. Arthrobacter chlorophenolicus and Enterobacter sp. showed maximum and significantly 23.60 and 28.97% plant height in pot and field experiments at 90 days after sowing. Bacillus megaterium caused maximum and significantly 51.45 and 40.47% grain and straw yield, respectively under pot while Serratia marcescens showed 14.78 and 17.04% grain and straw yield in field as compared to control. Most of the strains showed significant effect on microbial populations of post harvest soil under pot and field. It was concluded that A. chlorophenolicus, Enterobacter sp., B. megaterium and S. marcescens are effective strains of plant growth promoting bacterial strains for wheat crop production under Indo- Gangetic plains of India. Key words: Bacterial strains, biochemical, growth, microbial population, wheat, yield.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Arthrobacter chlorophenolicus produced a maximum significant 23.60% plant height response in pots.

Treatment
Arthrobacter chlorophenolicuse0
Interactor
Arthrobacter chlorophenolicusPseudarthrobacter chlorophenolicuse0symbiont
Outcome
plant heighte0
Direction
maximume0
Value
23.60e0
Setting
pote0

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

“Arthrobacter chlorophenolicus and Enterobacter sp. showed maximum and significantly 23.60 and 28.97% plant height in pot and field experiments at 90 days after sowing.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 869–1036 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–99 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Enterobacter sp. produced a maximum significant 28.97% plant height response in field experiments.

Treatment
Enterobacter sp.e0
Interactor
Enterobacter sp.Enterobactere0symbiont
Outcome
plant heighte0
Direction
maximume0
Value
28.97%e0
Setting
field experimentse0

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 ↗
Enterobacter
Enterobacter · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Arthrobacter chlorophenolicus and Enterobacter sp. showed maximum and significantly 23.60 and 28.97% plant height in pot and field experiments at 90 days after sowing.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 869–1036 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–99 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacillus megaterium gave the maximum significant 51.45% grain yield response in pots.

Treatment
Bacillus megateriume0
Interactor
Bacillus megateriumPriestia megateriume0symbiont
Outcome
graine0
Direction
maximume0
Value
51.45e0
Comparator
controle0
Setting
pote0

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 ↗
Priestia megaterium
Priestia megaterium · InteractorOsmoregulator / Osmoregulator at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Bacillus megaterium caused maximum and significantly 51.45 and 40.47% grain and straw yield, respectively under pot while Serratia marcescens showed 14.78 and 17.04% grain and straw yield in field as compared to control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1037–1257 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–99 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacillus megaterium gave the maximum significant 40.47% straw yield response in pots.

Treatment
Bacillus megateriume0
Interactor
Bacillus megateriumPriestia megateriume0symbiont
Outcome
straw yielde0
Direction
maximume0
Value
40.47%e0
Comparator
controle0
Setting
pote0

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 ↗
Priestia megaterium
Priestia megaterium · InteractorOsmoregulator / Osmoregulator at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Bacillus megaterium caused maximum and significantly 51.45 and 40.47% grain and straw yield, respectively under pot while Serratia marcescens showed 14.78 and 17.04% grain and straw yield in field as compared to control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1037–1257 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–99 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Serratia marcescens gave a 14.78% grain yield response in the field versus control.

Treatment
Serratia marcescense0
Interactor
Serratia marcescensSerratia marcescense0symbiont
Outcome
graine0
Value
14.78e0
Comparator
controle0
Setting
fielde0

Not reportedDirection

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 ↗
Serratia marcescens
Serratia marcescens · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Serratia marcescens showed 14.78 and 17.04% grain and straw yield in field as compared to control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1159–1257 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–99 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Serratia marcescens gave a 17.04% straw yield response in the field versus control.

Treatment
Serratia marcescense0
Interactor
Serratia marcescensSerratia marcescense0symbiont
Outcome
straw yielde0
Value
17.04%e0
Comparator
controle0
Setting
fielde0

Not reportedDirection

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 ↗
Serratia marcescens
Serratia marcescens · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Serratia marcescens showed 14.78 and 17.04% grain and straw yield in field as compared to control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1159–1257 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–99 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Most strains significantly affected post harvest soil microbial populations.

Treatment
Most of the strainse0
Outcome
microbial populations of post harvest soile0
Setting
pot and fielde0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

“Most of the strains showed significant effect on microbial populations of post harvest soil under pot and field.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1258–1370 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–99 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend four strains for wheat production in the Indo Gangetic plains.

Outcome
effective strains of plant growth promoting bacterial strains for wheat crop productione0
Setting
Indo- Gangetic plains of Indiae0

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

“A. chlorophenolicus, Enterobacter sp., B. megaterium and S. marcescens are effective strains of plant growth promoting bacterial strains for wheat crop production under Indo- Gangetic plains of India.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1393–1593 · show in text ↑

Pseudarthrobacter chlorophenolicus · 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 →

Serratia marcescens · yield · 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 →

Enterobacter · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

Priestia megaterium · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

8 papers: 8 positive, 0 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.