Paper · 2023 · Plant Stress

Growth response of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) exposed to Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas stutzeri, and Pseudomonas gessardii in lead contaminated soil

Adeel Ahmad; Zain Mushtaq; Anum Nazir; et al.

7
claims
18
verbatim quotes
16
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

Lead (Pb) is a major contaminant among heavy metals in the soil environment that has negative impacts on the growth of plants, which ultimately cause health risk via entering into the food chain. In this regard, plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) might improve plant growth by counteracting the harmful effects of Pb stress. Therefore, the present pot study was conducted to evaluate the role of PGPR in improving the growth of cowpea in Pb-contaminated soil. Three different concentrations of Pb (250, 350, and 750 mg kg−1) were applied alone (control) and in combination with bacterial inoculums [S1 (Pseudomonas fluorescens), S2 (Pseudomonas stutzeri) and S3 (Pseudomonas gessardii)] using completely randomized design each with three replicates. Results showed that plant fresh weight, plant dry weight, shoot length, root length, and chlorophyll contents of cowpea plants were improved significantly (P ≤ 0.05) by applying bacterial isolates as compared to the un-inoculated contaminated control. Among bacterial isolates, S3 performed better as compared to other bacterial isolates. The maximum increase in plant fresh weight, plant dry weight, shoot length, root length, and chlorophyll content was observed under S3 bacterial strain. Bacterial inoculation also enhanced the Pb concentration in the plant and the maximum uptake was recorded under S3 bacterial strain at 750 mg kg−1. Consequently, it has been concluded that PGPR has the great potential to enhance the plant growth and physiological characteristics of cowpea in Pb-contaminated sites and can also be used for bioremediation purposes.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial isolates significantly increased cowpea fresh and dry weight and shoot and root length relative to uninoculated lead-contaminated controls.

Treatment
applying bacterial isolatese0
Outcome
plant fresh weight, plant dry weight, shoot length, root lengthe0
Direction
improvede0
Comparator
un-inoculated contaminated controle0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–48 · show in text ↑
e0

“plant fresh weight, plant dry weight, shoot length, root length, and chlorophyll contents of cowpea plants were improved significantly (P ≤ 0.05) by applying bacterial isolates as compared to the un-inoculated contaminated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 779–1009 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial isolates significantly improved cowpea chlorophyll content relative to uninoculated contaminated controls.

Treatment
applying bacterial isolatese0
Outcome
chlorophyll contentse0
Direction
improvede0
Comparator
un-inoculated contaminated controle0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–48 · show in text ↑
e0

“chlorophyll contents of cowpea plants were improved significantly (P ≤ 0.05) by applying bacterial isolates as compared to the un-inoculated contaminated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 848–1009 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pseudomonas gessardii performed better than the other bacterial isolates.

Treatment
S3e0e1
Interactor
Pseudomonas gessardiiPseudomonas gessardiie1symbiont
Outcome
performed bettere0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
other bacterial isolatese0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pseudomonas gessardii
Pseudomonas gessardii · InteractorRzuczek.01 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–48 · show in text ↑
e0

“S3 performed better as compared to other bacterial isolates”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1037–1096 · show in text ↑
e1

“S3 (Pseudomonas gessardii)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 668–694 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pseudomonas gessardii produced the largest increase in cowpea fresh and dry weight and shoot and root length.

Treatment
S3 bacterial straine0
Interactor
Pseudomonas gessardiiPseudomonas gessardiie1symbiont
Outcome
plant fresh weight, plant dry weight, shoot length, root lengthe0
Direction
maximum increasee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pseudomonas gessardii
Pseudomonas gessardii · InteractorRzuczek.01 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–48 · show in text ↑
e0

“The maximum increase in plant fresh weight, plant dry weight, shoot length, root length, and chlorophyll content was observed under S3 bacterial strain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1098–1249 · show in text ↑
e1

“S3 (Pseudomonas gessardii)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 668–694 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pseudomonas gessardii produced the largest increase in cowpea chlorophyll content.

Treatment
S3 bacterial straine0
Interactor
Pseudomonas gessardiiPseudomonas gessardiie1symbiont
Outcome
chlorophyll contente0
Direction
maximum increasee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pseudomonas gessardii
Pseudomonas gessardii · InteractorRzuczek.01 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–48 · show in text ↑
e0

“The maximum increase in plant fresh weight, plant dry weight, shoot length, root length, and chlorophyll content was observed under S3 bacterial strain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1098–1249 · show in text ↑
e1

“S3 (Pseudomonas gessardii)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 668–694 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial inoculation increased plant lead concentration, with maximum uptake under Pseudomonas gessardii at 750 mg kg−1.

Treatment
Bacterial inoculatione0
Interactor
Pseudomonas gessardiiPseudomonas gessardiie1symbiont
Outcome
Pb concentration in the plante0
Direction
enhancede0
Value
750 mg kg−1e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pseudomonas gessardii
Pseudomonas gessardii · InteractorRzuczek.01 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–48 · show in text ↑
e0

“Bacterial inoculation also enhanced the Pb concentration in the plant and the maximum uptake was recorded under S3 bacterial strain at 750 mg kg−1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1251–1397 · show in text ↑
e1

“S3 (Pseudomonas gessardii)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 668–694 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors propose PGPR for cowpea growth improvement and bioremediation in lead-contaminated sites.

Outcome
can also be used for bioremediation purposese0
Qualifier
Pb-contaminated sitese0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–48 · show in text ↑
e0

“PGPR has the great potential to enhance the plant growth and physiological characteristics of cowpea in Pb-contaminated sites and can also be used for bioremediation purposes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1440–1614 · show in text ↑

inoculation · physiology: pigments · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 8 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

inoculation · growth · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

102 papers: 92 positive, 10 negative or no effect

91 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

98 papers more in this group

See all 102 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.