Abstract
Plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) have growth-promoting and disease-resisting effects and can be used as new types of plant growth promoters. This study was conducted to determine the plant growth-promoting traits of five strains and follow a 2-year field trial to evaluate their effects on grape growth and fruit quality. The five PGPB were combined with two organic fertilizers (cow dung fertilizer and distillers’ grain fertilizer) for application on grape fields; the control group only received the corresponding organic fertilizer. The five strains showed different growth promoting abilities, as indicated by their differing production of indole acetic acid (IAA) and siderophores and ability to dissolve phosphorus and potassium, fix nitrogen, and resist saline and alkali. During the field trial, vine growth and fruit quality were significantly better in the distillers’ grain fertilizer (high nutrient content) alone treatment than in the cow dung fertilizer (low nutrient content) alone treatment. However, after the two fertilizers were inoculated with the five different PGPB, only the five treatments with cow dung fertilizer inoculated with PGPB showed significant improvement. The five treatments of cow dung fertilizer inoculated with PGPB exhibited varied impacts on plant growth and fruit quality. And the promotion effects persisted significantly after two consecutive years. Among the PGPB, Bacillus velezensis 18, B. velezensis 20, and Rahnella aquatilis 5 emerged as consistently effective performers over the two-year period, demonstrating stable and commendable outcomes. These strains are recommended for prolonged application in grape cultivation to optimize growth and yield. This study provides a theoretical reference and an experimental basis for organic fertilizer inoculated with PGPB to improve grape production.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Five bacterial strains differed in production of indole acetic acid and siderophores.
Verbatim
e0“The five strains showed different growth promoting abilities, as indicated by their differing production of indole acetic acid (IAA) and siderophores”
t0“Grape”
Claim · model-written summary
The five strains differed in phosphorus and potassium dissolution, nitrogen fixation and saline and alkali resistance.
Verbatim
e0“The five strains showed different growth promoting abilities, as indicated by their differing production of indole acetic acid (IAA) and siderophores and ability to dissolve phosphorus and potassium, fix nitrogen, and resist saline and alkali”
t0“Grape”
Claim · model-written summary
Grape vine growth and fruit quality were significantly better with distillers’ grain fertilizer alone than cow dung fertilizer alone.
Verbatim
e0“vine growth and fruit quality were significantly better in the distillers’ grain fertilizer (high nutrient content) alone treatment than in the cow dung fertilizer (low nutrient content) alone treatment”
t0“Grape”
Claim · model-written summary
Cow dung fertilizer inoculated with plant growth-promoting bacteria significantly improved grape growth and fruit quality.
- Taxon
- grapet0
- Treatment
- cow dung fertilizer inoculated with PGPBe0
- Interactor
- PGPBe0symbiont
- Outcome
- plant growth and fruit qualitye0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“The five treatments of cow dung fertilizer inoculated with PGPB exhibited varied impacts on plant growth and fruit quality”
t0“Grape”
Claim · model-written summary
The effects of cow dung fertilizer with PGPB on grape growth and quality varied among treatments.
Verbatim
e0“The five treatments of cow dung fertilizer inoculated with PGPB exhibited varied impacts on plant growth and fruit quality”
t0“Grape”
Claim · model-written summary
The promotion effects persisted significantly after two consecutive years.
Verbatim
e0“the promotion effects persisted significantly after two consecutive years”
t0“Grape”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacillus velezensis 18 was consistently effective over two years.
- Taxon
- grapet0
- Interactor
- Bacillus velezensis 18
Bacillus velezensise0symbiont - Outcome
- consistently effective performerse0
- Qualifier
- two-year periode0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Bacillus velezensis 18, B. velezensis 20, and Rahnella aquatilis 5 emerged as consistently effective performers over the two-year period”
t0“Grape”
Claim · model-written summary
B. velezensis 20 was consistently effective over two years.
- Taxon
- grapet0
- Interactor
- B. velezensis 20Bacillus velezensise0symbiont
- Outcome
- consistently effective performerse0
- Qualifier
- two-year periode0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Bacillus velezensis 18, B. velezensis 20, and Rahnella aquatilis 5 emerged as consistently effective performers over the two-year period”
t0“Grape”
Claim · model-written summary
Rahnella aquatilis 5 was consistently effective over two years.
- Taxon
- grapet0
- Interactor
- Rahnella aquatilis 5
Rahnella aquatilise0symbiont - Outcome
- consistently effective performerse0
- Qualifier
- two-year periode0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Bacillus velezensis 18, B. velezensis 20, and Rahnella aquatilis 5 emerged as consistently effective performers over the two-year period”
t0“Grape”
Claim · model-written summary
The three effective strains were recommended for prolonged grape cultivation to optimize growth and yield.
Verbatim
e0“These strains are recommended for prolonged application in grape cultivation to optimize growth and yield”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · quality: grain · VitisPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
fertilization · quality: grain · VitisPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
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.