Paper · 2025 · Frontiers in Microbiology

Impacts of pseudomonas fluorescent bacterial fertilizer addition on the soil environment and fruit yield under water stress in greenhouse grape

Yanting Gao; Hongjuan Zhang; Rui Zhang; et al.

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
3
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Bacterial fertilizers, which contain beneficial soil microorganisms, are becoming more widely used as they can mitigate the problems of crop yields reduction and soil environment degradation caused by the overuse of chemical fertilizer. However, the impact of bacterial fertilizer on greenhouse grape yields and the rhizosphere soil environment has not been assessed in arid and semi-arid region of Northwest China. Thus, a 2-year field trial was conducted with five treatments: adequate water supply without bacterial fertilizer (CK); mild (W1), moderate (W2) water stress and small (F1), maximize (F2) fertilizer cross-combination, respectively. The results indicated that water stress had a negative impact on the accumulation of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), and microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN) in the rhizosphere soil. The addition of pseudomonas fluorescent bacterial fertilizer significantly increased the content of available phosphorus (AP), DOC, MBC and MBN content. The W1F2 treatment significantly increased the activities of urease, catalase and sucrase ( p < 0.05). The W1F1 and W1F2 treatments increased fungal and bacterial diversity. Bacterial community composition was closely related to soil total organic carbon (TOC), soil organic matter (SOM), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), MBC, and sucrase, while fungi community composition was significantly related to Nitrate-N (NO 3 − -N), TN, and sucrase. Additionally, compared with CK treatment the yield and economic benefit of the W1F2 treatment increased by 35.44 and 44.04%, respectively. Therefore, W1F2 is recommended as the optimal water and fertilizer management scheme for efficient greenhouse grape production in the arid and semi-arid region of Northwest China.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water stress lowered rhizosphere DOC, MBC, and MBN.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
water stresse0
Outcome
dissolved organic carbon (DOC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), and microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN)e0
Direction
negative impacte0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“water stress had a negative impact on the accumulation of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), and microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN) in the rhizosphere soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 675–857 · show in text ↑
t0

“grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 138–143 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial fertilizer significantly raised available P and rhizosphere DOC, MBC, and MBN.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
pseudomonas fluorescent bacterial fertilizere0
Outcome
available phosphorus (AP), DOC, MBC and MBN contente0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The addition of pseudomonas fluorescent bacterial fertilizer significantly increased the content of available phosphorus (AP), DOC, MBC and MBN content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 859–1010 · show in text ↑
t0

“grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 138–143 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

W1F2 significantly raised urease, catalase, and sucrase activity.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
W1F2 treatmente0
Outcome
activities of urease, catalase and sucrasee0
Direction
increasede0
Value
p < 0.05e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The W1F2 treatment significantly increased the activities of urease, catalase and sucrase ( p < 0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1012–1113 · show in text ↑
t0

“grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 138–143 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

W1F1 and W1F2 increased fungal and bacterial diversity.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
W1F1 and W1F2 treatmentse0
Outcome
fungal and bacterial diversitye0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The W1F1 and W1F2 treatments increased fungal and bacterial diversity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1115–1184 · show in text ↑
t0

“grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 138–143 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial community composition was closely related to TOC, SOM, TN, TP, MBC, and sucrase.

Taxon
grapet0
Outcome
Bacterial community compositione0
Direction
closely relatede0
Setting
soil total organic carbon (TOC), soil organic matter (SOM), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), MBC, and sucrasee0

Verbatim

e0

“Bacterial community composition was closely related to soil total organic carbon (TOC), soil organic matter (SOM), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), MBC, and sucrase”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1186–1361 · show in text ↑
t0

“grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 138–143 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungal community composition was significantly related to nitrate-N, TN, and sucrase.

Taxon
grapet0
Outcome
fungi community compositione0
Direction
relatede0
Setting
Nitrate-N (NO 3 − -N), TN, and sucrasee0

Verbatim

e0

“fungi community composition was significantly related to Nitrate-N (NO 3 − -N), TN, and sucrase”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1369–1464 · show in text ↑
t0

“grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 138–143 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

W1F2 increased grape yield by 35.44% versus CK.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
W1F2 treatmente0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
35.44e0
Comparator
CK treatmente0

Verbatim

e0

“compared with CK treatment the yield and economic benefit of the W1F2 treatment increased by 35.44 and 44.04%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1480–1603 · show in text ↑
t0

“grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 138–143 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

W1F2 increased economic benefit by 44.04% versus CK.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
W1F2 treatmente0
Outcome
economic benefite0
Direction
increasede0
Value
44.04%e0
Comparator
CK treatmente0

Verbatim

e0

“compared with CK treatment the yield and economic benefit of the W1F2 treatment increased by 35.44 and 44.04%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1480–1603 · show in text ↑
t0

“grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 138–143 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend W1F2 for efficient greenhouse grape production in northwest China.

Taxon
grapet0
Outcome
optimal water and fertilizer management schemee0
Setting
arid and semi-arid region of Northwest Chinae0

Verbatim

e0

“W1F2 is recommended as the optimal water and fertilizer management scheme for efficient greenhouse grape production in the arid and semi-arid region of Northwest China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1616–1783 · show in text ↑
t0

“grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 138–143 · show in text ↑

drought · soil: chemistry · VitisPositive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. negative
See all 3 papers →

fertilization · soil: chemistry · VitisPositive and negative results

14 papers: 13 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 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.