Screening of Native Rhizobia and Pseudomonas Strains for Plant Growth Promoting Activities

Thirumal, G.; Reddy, R. Subhash; Triveni, S.; Nagaraju, Yalavarthi; Prasannakumar, B.

doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2017.607.075

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides Azospirillum , other groups of PGPB have been studied in inoculation of maize, such as Pseudomonas spp. (Burr et al 1978; Ahirwar et al 2015; Thirumal et al 2017; Sandini et al 2019). Pseudomonas are able to produce siderophores, which are molecules capable of capturing insoluble iron from the environment (Fe 3+ ), and convert it to a soluble form (Fe 2+ ) available for plants (Sharma and Johri 2003; Sah et al 2017).…”

Section: Main Inoculated Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbial inoculants: reviewing the past, discussing the present and previewing an outstanding future for the use of beneficial bacteria in agriculture

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than one hundred years have passed since the development of the first microbial inoculant for plants. Nowadays, the use of microbial inoculants in agriculture is spread worldwide for different crops and carrying different microorganisms. In the last decades, impressive progress has been achieved in the production, commercialization and use of inoculants. Nowadays, farmers are more receptive to the use of inoculants mainly because high-quality products and multi-purpose elite strains are available at the market, improving yields at low cost in comparison to chemical fertilizers. In the context of a more sustainable agriculture, microbial inoculants also help to mitigate environmental impacts caused by agrochemicals. Challenges rely on the production of microbial inoculants for a broader range of crops, and the expansion of the inoculated area worldwide, in addition to the search for innovative microbial solutions in areas subjected to increasing episodes of environmental stresses. In this review, we explore the world market for inoculants, showing which bacteria are prominent as inoculants in different countries, and we discuss the main research strategies that might contribute to improve the use of microbial inoculants in agriculture.

show abstract

Section: Main Inoculated Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbial inoculants: reviewing the past, discussing the present and previewing an outstanding future for the use of beneficial bacteria in agriculture

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Laboratory Evaluation Of the Shelf Life Of The Formulated Biofertilizermentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Interestingly, under room storage, the WB formulation maintained the highest inoculant populations for most of the storage period except from the 7th month onwards where the inoculant population dropped to 1.5 log CFU g −1 below levels observed in the other formulations (Figure 2b). Although the storage of biofertilizers is mostly reported to be better under refrigeration than room conditions [26,[41][42][43], the present results show that WB could sufficiently maintain K. grimontii MPUS7 under room storage, which may allow for its integration in the existing agricultural distribution systems that lack refrigeration facilities [44]. The maximum inoculant population (5.331 log CFU g −1 ) of K. grimontii MPUS7 was achieved in BG after 4 months of storage under refrigeration but the FYM formulation also maintained relatively high K. grimontii MPUS7 populations for most of the storage period under the same conditions (Figure 2a), a strong indication of its potential suitability as a carrier for this inoculant under refrigeration, probably due to its lower average MC (8.62 ± 1.45%) which may make inoculants to remain relatively inactive and resistant to environmental stresses [33].…”

Section: Laboratory Evaluation Of the Shelf Life Of The Formulated Biofertilizermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The prolonged shelf life of inoculants under refrigeration has previously been linked to the reduction of metabolic activities and physiological activities [26,41]. While investigating the shelf lives of Rhizobium carrier-based biofertilizers under different storage temperatures, refrigeration (8 • C) was also demonstrated to be more suitable for inoculant viability probably because of lowered MC at higher temperatures [43].…”

Section: Comparative Effects Of Storage Temperatures On the Viability Of Biofertilizer Formationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Carrier Materials and Storage Temperatures on the Viability and Stability of Three Biofertilizer Inoculants Obtained from Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Rhizosphere

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biofertilizer technology continues to be derailed by the short shelf life of inoculants. The present study investigated the suitability of wheat-bran (WB), rice-husks (RH), farmyard-manure (FYM), bagasse (BG), and sawdust (SD) in the formulation of potato-derived Klebsiella grimontii (MPUS7), Serratia marcescens (NGAS9), and Citrobacter freundii (LUTT5) under refrigerated (8 °C) and room (25 ± 2 °C) storage. The physicochemical properties of the materials were assessed before sterilization and introduction of the inoculants and assessment of their viability for 8 months. Most of the physicochemical properties of the materials varied significantly (p < 0.05). Bagasse supported the maximum growth of MPUS7 (5.331 log CFU g−1) under refrigeration and LUTT5 (4.094 log CFU g−1) under both conditions. Under room storage, the maximum growth of MPUS7 (3.721 log CFU g−1) occurred in WB. Formulations that remained viable under room storage can easily be integrated into existing agricultural distribution systems that lack refrigeration.

show abstract

“…Rhizosphere soil and roots play an important role in recruiting and maintaining bacterial antagonists ( Venturi and Keel, 2016 ). Root-associated bacteria often display plant beneficial attributes such as plant growth promotion and the capability of suppressing plant pathogens acting as biocontrol agents ( Naureen et al, 2017 ; Thirumal et al, 2017 ). In this study, a total of 48 isolates ( Figure 1 ) was screened by dual culture plate assays for in vitro antagonism against the soil-borne pathogen Phytophthora spp.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of Soil Bacterial Isolates Suppressing Different Phytophthora spp. and Promoting Plant Growth

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bacterial isolates obtained from the rhizosphere of Arabidopsis and a plantless compost potting mix was screened for anti-oomycete activity against Phytophthora capsici, Phytophthora citricola, Phytophthora palmivora, and Phytophthora cinnamomi. Three out of 48 isolates exhibited more than 65% inhibition against all tested Phytophthora species and were selected for further studies. These strains, named UQ154, UQ156, and UQ202, are closely related to Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus velezensis, and Acinetobacter sp., respectively, based on 16S rDNA sequence analysis. The isolates were evaluated for their ability to fix nitrogen, solubilize phosphate, as well as for siderophore, indoleacetic acid, cell wall degrading enzymes and biofilm production. Their plant growth promoting activities were evaluated by measuring their effect on the germination percentage, root and shoot length, and seedling vigor of lettuce plants. All of these traits were significantly enhanced in plants grown from seeds inoculated with the isolates compared with control plants. Moreover, bacteria-inoculated P. capsici-infected chili plants exhibited improved productivity based on CO2 assimilation rates. Both real-time quantitative PCR and disease severity index revealed significant decreases in pathogen load in infected chili root tissues when plants were previously inoculated with the isolates. Biocontrol activity may result from the secretion of diketopiperazines as identified by Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis of bacterial cultures’ extracts. Collectively, this work demonstrates the potential of bacterial isolates to control Phytophthora infection and promote plant growth. They can, therefore be considered as candidate microbial biofertilizers and biopesticides.

show abstract

Screening of Native Rhizobia and Pseudomonas Strains for Plant Growth Promoting Activities

Cited by 8 publications

References 16 publications

Microbial inoculants: reviewing the past, discussing the present and previewing an outstanding future for the use of beneficial bacteria in agriculture

Microbial inoculants: reviewing the past, discussing the present and previewing an outstanding future for the use of beneficial bacteria in agriculture

Effects of Carrier Materials and Storage Temperatures on the Viability and Stability of Three Biofertilizer Inoculants Obtained from Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Rhizosphere

Identification of Soil Bacterial Isolates Suppressing Different Phytophthora spp. and Promoting Plant Growth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About