| Literature DB >> 31269087 |
Ajit Kumar Passari1,2, Kalidas Upadhyaya3, Garima Singh1, Ahmed M Abdel-Azeem4, Sugitha Thankappan5, Sivakumar Uthandi5, Abeer Hashem6,7, Elsayed Fathi Abd Allah8, Jahangir Ahmed Malik8, Alqarawi As8, Vijai Kumar Gupta9, Sanjay Ranjan10, Bhim Pratap Singh1.
Abstract
Biotic stresses in plants have a significant impact on agricultural productivity. In the present study, in vivo experiments were conducted to determine the physiological responses of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) seedlings by inoculation with an endophytic actinobacterium, Streptomyces thermocarboxydus isolate BPSAC147 under greenhouse conditions. Further, photochemical quantum yield of photosystem II (PSII) (Fv/Fm), photochemical quenching (qP) and non-photochemical (NPQ) were calculated in seedlings inoculated with S. thermocarboxydus (T1) and were compared with control (T0) plants. Furthermore, the electron transport rate (ETR) of PSII exhibited a significant increase in T1 plants, relative to T0 plants. These results indicate that inoculation of tomato seedlings with S. thermocarboxydus had a positive effect on the process of photosynthesis, resulting in enhanced chlorophyll fluorescence parameters due to increased ETR in the thylakoid membrane. GC-MS analysis showed significant differences in the volatile compounds in the different treatments performed under greenhouse conditions. The present study suggests that S. thermocarboxydus can be used as new biocontrol agent to control Fusarium wilt in tomato crops and enhance productivity by enhancing photosynthesis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31269087 PMCID: PMC6608948 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
In-Vivo plant growth promotion assay in tomato plant after 60 days transplantation.
| Treatments Label | Shoot length (cm) | Root length (cm) | Shoot: Root (length ratio) | Shoot Weight | Root Weight | Total dry weight (gm) | Shoot: Root (dry ratio) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh (gm) | Dry (gm) | Fresh (gm) | Dry (gm) | ||||||
| 60 days after transplantation | |||||||||
| 100.85±4.61 | 25.90±2.63 | 3.89:1 | 22.17±1.22 | 3.49±0.25 | 3.91±0.27 | 1.03±0.12 | 2.26±0.31 | 3.38:1 | |
| 117.6±4.47 | 37.16±4.09 | 3.16:1 | 26.91±1.83 | 4.44±0.27 | 5.73±0.62 | 1.5±0.32 | 2.97±0.39 | 2.96:1 | |
| 97.10±2.87 | 21.45±1.63 | 4.52:1 | 20.41±1.42 | 3.35±0.22 | 2.86±0.21 | 0.77±0.09 | 2.06±0.31 | 4.35:1 | |
| 83.3±3.69 | 16.70±0.83 | 4.98:1 | 17.42±1.24 | 2.74±0.20 | 2.27±0.27 | 0.62±0.09 | 1.68±0.26 | 4.41:1 | |
| 9.44 | 6.17 | - | 3.45 | 0.572 | 0.912 | 0.441 | 0.505 | - | |
| 13.56 | 8.87 | - | 4.95 | 0.823 | 1.31 | 0.633 | 0.724 | - | |
Chlorophyll content in treatment tomato plant.
| Treatment Label | Chlorophyll a | Chlorophyll b | Total Chlorophyll (a+b) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8.455 | 7.246 | 15.701 | |
| 18.545 | 16.104 | 34.649 | |
| 6.607 | 6.022 | 12.629 | |
| 4.206 | 5.044 | 9.25 | |
| 11.818 | |||