| Literature DB >> 31164880 |
Anas Raklami1,2, Noura Bechtaoui1, Abdel-Ilah Tahiri1,2, Mohamed Anli2, Abdelilah Meddich2, Khalid Oufdou1.
Abstract
Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are known for their beneficial effects. In recent years, more attention has been paid to their use as biofertilizers to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers causing significant damage to the environment. To have high plant yields, biofertilizers may not be able to sustain plant demands and could be used in combination with chemical fertilizers. However, the application of biofertilizers in the field such as rhizobacteria and AMF are understudied and powerfully needed. In this context, this study aims to evaluate the effect of inoculation with rhizobacteria and AMF and their potential to stimulate two of the most economically important crops in Mediterranean semi-arid areas (Vicia faba L. and Triticum durum L.). The effect of inoculation was studied in field experiment with six treatments: (i) the control without inoculation (C), (ii) PGPR alone (PG), (iii) rhizobia alone (R), (iv) the mixture of PGPR and rhizobia (PR), (v) AMF alone (M), and (vi) the mixture of PGPR, rhizobia and AMF (PRM). The inoculation with the consortium of PGPR-rhizobia-AMF (PRM) induced the greatest effect. This inoculation improved the growth parameters (dry weight of shoots and roots) of faba bean and wheat. An improvement of 130, 200, and 78% was observed in V. faba shoot and root dry weight, and the number of leaves, respectively. Similarly, shoot and root dry weight and number of leaves of T. durum were enhanced by 293, 258, and 87%, respectively. The inoculation improved the productivity of studied plants presented by the number and weight of bean pods (270 × 104 ha-1 and 30737.5 kg.ha-1) and wheat spikes (440 × 104 ha-1 and 10560 kg.ha-1). In addition, the mineral analyses showed that the inoculation with PGPR-rhizobia-mycorrhizae improved N, P, Ca, K, and Na shoots contents, as well as the contents of sugar and proteins. Finally, we revealed the positive impact of the tested biofertilizers and the interest of adoption of innovative practices improving crops productivity and soil fertility.Entities:
Keywords: PGPR; biofertilizers; mediterranean region; nutrient uptake; rhizosphere
Year: 2019 PMID: 31164880 PMCID: PMC6536659 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
The different treatments applied in the field experimentation.
| Code | Type of inoculation | Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| C | Control | No inoculated plants |
| PG | PGPR alone | PGP27 + BS17 |
| R | rhizobia alone | RhOF4 + RhOF155 |
| PR | PGPR + rhizobia | PGP27 + BS17 + RhOF4 + RhOF155 |
| M | AMF | AMF |
| PRM | PGPR + rhizobia + AMF | PGP27 + BS17 + RhOF4 + RhOF155 + AMF |
Characteristics of the tested rhizobacteria.
| Activity | PGP27 | BS17 | RhOF4 | RhOF155 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phosphate solubilization | + | ++ | +++ | +++ |
| Potassium solubilization | +++ | + | ++ | + |
| Exopolysaccharide production | 22.65 | 10.67 | 72.35 | 176.02 |
| (mg of CR/OD600) | ||||
| Siderophore production | - | - | - | - |
| AIA production (μg/ml) | 38.07 | 10.76 | 112.43 | 290.64 |
| HCN production | - | - | - | - |
| Nitrogen fixation | ++ | + | +++ | +++ |
| Reduction of nitrate to nitrite | + | + | - | - |
| Reduction of nitrate to dinitrogen | + | + | - | - |
| Glucose fermentation | + | + | - | - |
| Arginine dihydrolase | - | + | - | + |
| Urease | - | + | - | + |
| Gelatinase | + | - | - | - |
| Assimilation of glucose | + | + | + | - |
| Assimilation of mannitol | - | + | + | + |
| Assimilation of maltose | + | + | - | + |
Effect of bacteria and AMF inoculation on growth and biochemical parameters of faba bean.
| Treatments | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | PG | R | PR | M | PRM | |
| Mycorrhization frequency (%) | 35 (10) c | 55 (9) c | 56.66 (9) b | 60 (9) b | 95 (8) a | 97 (8) a |
| Shoot dry weight (g/plant) | 56.47 (3.42) e | 74.62 (2.64) e | 80.35 (4.24) c | 82.32 (10.25) d | 111.47 (12.86) b | 129.95 (10.10) a |
| Root dry weight (g/plant) | 7.32 (0.22) d | 8.23 (0.23) c | 12.21 (0.45) c | 10.80 (0.55) c | 15.77 (0.77) b | 22.21 (0.33) a |
| Leaves number/plant | 82.8 (1.09) e | 101.2 (5.60) d | 130.2 (6.61) c | 108.0 (0.81) d | 142.2 (4.60) b | 155.0 (2.34) a |
| Flowers number/plant | 43.0 (4.58) f | 53.8 (3.83) e | 61.4 (5.63) d | 71.2 (4.43) c | 86.6 (1.14) b | 109.0 (4.74) a |
| Sugar content (mg eq glucose. g-1 DW) | 1051,8 (53.15) d | 1152,7 (56.07) d | 1158,8 (94.34) d | 1355,7 (45.56) c | 1532,6 (58.61) b | 1822,6 (90.25) a |
| Protein content (mg eq albumine bovine.g-1 DW) | 128,46 (4.07) d | 146,25 (14.37) d | 279,41 (17.14) c | 284,26 (18.03) c | 328,46 (23.82) b | 485,88 (18.60) a |
| Polyphenol content (mg eq gallic acid /g DW) | 283,87 (12.15) a | 241,00 (18.92) b | 205,54 (1.78) c | 192,73 (1.38) c | 243,09 (3.77) b | 237,19 (16.27) b |
Effect of bacteria and AMF inoculation on growth and biochemical parameters of wheat.
| Treatments | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | PG | R | PR | M | PRM | |
| Mycorrhization frequency (%) | 35 (9) c | 50 (12) bc | 60 (10) b | 45 (7) bc | 93.33 (6) a | 93.33 (6) a |
| Shoot dry weight (g/plant) | 2.56 (0.23) d | 3.57 (0.50) c | 6.32 (0.50) b | 6.43 (0.26) b | 5.81 (0.79) b | 10.08 (0.59) a |
| Root dry weight (g/plant) | 2.47 (0.75) c | 3.03 (0.39) c | 6.1 (0.37) b | 6.9 (0.71) b | 5.59 (1.04) b | 8.85 (0.47) a |
| Leaves number/plant | 26.0 (1.41) f | 34.5 (1.29) e | 37.75 (0.50) d | 44.0 (0.81) b | 40.5 (1.29) c | 46.5 (1.91) a |
| Sugar content (mg eq glucose.g-1 DW) | 773.98 (14.5) e | 904.07 (47.2) d | 1161.21 (32.8) c | 1121.70 (36.5) c | 1297.38 (126.8) b | 1462.12 (47.4) a |
| Protein content (mg eq albumine bovine.g-1 DW) | 2.97 (0.00) d | 3.15 (0.09) c | 3.28 (0.03) b | 3.23 (0.04) bc | 3.21 (0.00) bc | 3.34 (0.04) a |
| Polyphenol content (mg eq gallic acid /g DW) | 4.06 (0.08) bc | 3.24 (0.06) d | 4.79 (0.42) a | 3.92 (0.17) c | 4.41 (0.19) b | 2.79 (0.11) e |
Effect of bacteria and AMF inoculation on pod number and green pod weight of faba bean, and on spike number and spike dry weight of wheat.
| Pod number | Pod weight | Increase pod weight | Spike number | Spike weight | Increase spike weight | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | per ha ( × 104) | (kg ⋅ ha-1) | over control (%) | per ha ( × 104) | (kg ⋅ ha-1) | over control (%) |
| C | 105.0 (6.4) e | 6857.5 (370.1) d | – | 180 (40) e | 4344 (741.0) c | – |
| PG | 134.0 (26.0) d | 8357.5 (203.0) d | 21 | 260 (40) bc | 5232 (486.3) c | 20 |
| R | 186.0 (21.9) c | 15345.0 (2127.8) b | 123 | 260 (40.2) bc | 7080 (1067.2) b | 63 |
| PR | 142.5 (9.5) d | 12837.5 (1624.8) c | 87 | 340 (40) b | 7008 (514.0) b | 61 |
| M | 222.5 (15) b | 17625.0 (1587.1) b | 157 | 300 (76.5) b | 5504 (1691.1) bc | 26 |
| PRM | 270.0 (8.1) a | 30737.5 (1526.2) a | 348 | 440 (46.1) a | 10560 (678.8) a | 143 |
FIGURE 1Nitrogen content (A) and Mineral amount (B) in mg/g of dry matter of V. faba submitted to different treatments: C, control; PG, PGPR alone; R, rhizobia alone; PR, PGPR-rhizobia; M, AMF alone; PRM, PGPR-rhizobia-AMF. Means ( ± standard deviation) within the same graphic followed by different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05.
FIGURE 2Nitrogen content (A) and Mineral amount (B) in mg/g of dry matter of T. durum submitted to different treatments: C, control; PG, PGPR alone; R, rhizobia alone; PR, PGPR-rhizobia; M, AMF alone; PRM, PGPR-rhizobia-AMF. Means ( ± standard deviation) within the same graphic followed by different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05.
FIGURE 3Principal component analyses (PCA) of V. faba (A) and T. durum (B) submitted to different treatments: C, control; PG, PGPR alone; R, rhizobia alone; PR, PGPR-rhizobia; M, AMF alone; PRM, PGPR-rhizobia-AMF. The growth yield and nutrition variables are represented in red. The six treatments are given in blue. MF, mycorhization frequency; RDW, root dry weight; SDW, shoot dry weight; L, leaves number; F, flowers number; N, nitrogen content; P, phosphorus content; Na, sodium content; K, potassium content; Ca, calcium content: Sg, sugar content; Pr, protein content; Pp, polyphenol content; PN, pod number, PW, pod weight; SK, spike number, and SN, spite weight.
Soil physicochemical characteristics before the experiment.
| Total | Total | Organic | Total | Assimilable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conductivity | limestone | carbon | matter | nitrogen | phosphorus | |||
| Analyses | Texture | pH | (μS/cm) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (mg/g) | (ppm) |
| Properties of the soil | Sandy-silty | 8.12 | 138.3 | 5.04 | 0.5 | 0.86 | 9.98 | 57 |
Soil physicochemical characteristics after the experiment.
| Total | Organic | Total | Assimilable | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conductivity | carbon | matter | nitrogen | phosphorus | ||
| Analyses | pH | (μS/cm) | (%) | (%) | (mg/g) | (ppm) |
| C | 8.05 | 506.66 | 1.22 | 2.10 | 18.2 | 57 |
| PG | 7.18 | 191.30 | 2.20 | 3.79 | 22.4 | 83 |
| R | 7.18 | 243.33 | 2.27 | 3.91 | 33.6 | 90 |
| PR | 7.17 | 156.30 | 2.22 | 3.83 | 29.4 | 60 |
| M | 7.67 | 435.66 | 2.17 | 3.75 | 28.0 | 49 |
| PRM | 7.38 | 204.50 | 2.30 | 3.97 | 40.6 | 34 |