Abstract
Microbial and non-microbial plant biostimulants have been successfully used to improve agriculture productivity in a more sustainable manner. Since the mode of action of biostimulants is still largely unknown, the present work aimed at elucidating the morpho-physiological and metabolomic changes occurring in maize (Zea mays L.) leaves and roots following seeds treatment with i) a consortium of two beneficial fungi (arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi – AMF, and Trichoderma koningii TK7) and rhizobacteria, ii) protein hydrolysate-based biostimulant (PH) alone or iii) in combination with a consortium of T. koningii TK7 and rhizobacteria. The application of PH alone or in combination with Trichoderma elicited significant increases (+16.6%) in the shoot biomass compared to untreated maize plants, whereas inoculation with AMF + Trichoderma elicited significant increases of root dry biomass (+48.0%) compared to untreated plants. Distinctive metabolomic signatures achieved from the different treatments, hence suggesting that different molecular processes were involved in plant response to biostimulants. The metabolic reprogramming triggered by the treatments including the protein hydrolysate was hierarchically more pronounced than the application of microorganisms alone. The most of differential metabolites could be ascribed to secondary metabolism, with phenylpropanoids and terpenes being the most represented compounds. The application of the PH triggered an accumulation of secondary metabolites, whereas the direction of regulation was opposite in the case of microorganisms alone. Notwithstanding, the increase in biomass could be related to two processes, namely the modulation of the multilayer phytohormones interaction network and a possible increase in nitrogen use efficiency via the GS-GOGAT system.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Protein hydrolysate alone increased shoot biomass by 16.6% relative to untreated maize.
- Treatment
- PH alonee0
- Outcome
- shoot biomasse0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- +16.6%e0
- Comparator
- untreated maize plantse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The application of PH alone or in combination with Trichoderma elicited significant increases (+16.6%) in the shoot biomass compared to untreated maize plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Protein hydrolysate with Trichoderma increased shoot biomass by 16.6% relative to untreated maize.
- Treatment
- PH alone or in combination with Trichodermae0
- Interactor
- Trichoderma
Trichodermae0biocontrol_agent - Outcome
- shoot biomasse0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- +16.6%e0
- Comparator
- untreated maize plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The application of PH alone or in combination with Trichoderma elicited significant increases (+16.6%) in the shoot biomass compared to untreated maize plants”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF and Trichoderma inoculation increased root dry biomass by 48.0%.
- Treatment
- inoculation with AMF + Trichodermae0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Second interactor
- TrichodermaTrichodermae0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- root dry biomasse0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- +48.0%e0
- Comparator
- untreated plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“inoculation with AMF + Trichoderma elicited significant increases of root dry biomass (+48.0%) compared to untreated plants”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Different treatments produced distinctive metabolomic signatures.
- Outcome
- Distinctive metabolomic signaturese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Distinctive metabolomic signatures achieved from the different treatments”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Protein hydrolysate treatments produced more pronounced metabolic reprogramming than microorganisms alone.
- Treatment
- treatments including the protein hydrolysatee0
- Outcome
- metabolic reprogramminge0
- Direction
- more pronouncede0
- Comparator
- application of microorganisms alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The metabolic reprogramming triggered by the treatments including the protein hydrolysate was hierarchically more pronounced than the application of microorganisms alone”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Most differential metabolites were in secondary metabolism, especially phenylpropanoids and terpenes.
- Outcome
- phenylpropanoids and terpenes being the most represented compoundse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The most of differential metabolites could be ascribed to secondary metabolism, with phenylpropanoids and terpenes being the most represented compounds”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Protein hydrolysate accumulated secondary metabolites.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The application of the PH triggered an accumulation of secondary metabolites”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Microorganisms alone regulated secondary metabolites in the opposite direction.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the direction of regulation was opposite in the case of microorganisms alone”
e2“secondary metabolites, whereas the direction of regulation was opposite in the case of microorganisms alone”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
The same questions in other papers
Trichoderma · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →other · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
163 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
180 papers more in this group
See all 184 papers →mycorrhiza · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
168 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
184 papers more in this group
See all 188 papers →inoculation · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
634 papers in the same direction as this paper · 61 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
695 papers more in this group
See all 699 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.