| Literature DB >> 32384661 |
Nik Susič1, Uroš Žibrat1, Lovro Sinkovič2, Andrej Vončina1, Jaka Razinger1, Matej Knapič1, Aleš Sedlar2, Saša Širca1, Barbara Gerič Stare1.
Abstract
Root-knot nematodes are consEntities:
Keywords: Bacillus firmus; biological pest control; hyperspectral imaging; plant growth promotion; root-knot nematodes
Year: 2020 PMID: 32384661 PMCID: PMC7285481 DOI: 10.3390/plants9050592
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Evaluation of Meloidogyne luci infestation in tomatoes in the pot experiment.
| Treatment | Galling Index (0–10) | Number of Eggs/Plant ( | Number of Eggs/g Roots ( | Reproduction Factor (Rf) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC | 4.6 ± 0.3 a | 7.4 ± 0.3 a | 1.8 ± 0.2 a | 185.2 ± 7.0 a |
| PC | 0 ± 0.0 b | 0 ± 0.0 b | 0 ± 0.0 b | 0 ± 0.0 b |
| BfL | 3.6 ± 0.5 c | 3.6 ± 1.3 c | 0.8 ± 0.3 c | 89.8 ± 32.1 c |
| BfH | 3.3 ± 0.3 c | 4.0 ± 0.8 c | 0.7 ± 0.2 c | 99.7 ± 20.8 c |
| ANOVA statistics | n = 16, F3, 12 = 171.11, | n = 16, F3, 12 = 61.57, | n = 16, F3, 12 = 58.72, | n = 16, F3, 12 = 61.57, |
Root galling index scale (0—no infestation, 10—completely infested). Data presented as averages with the standard deviation (±SD); ANOVA statistic (n—dataset size, Fdf, df—F-statistic with degrees of freedom (df) between groups, and df within groups; p—p-value); and Tukey’s HSD results. Means sharing a letter are not significantly different at p < 0.05. NC—negative control; PC—positive control (nematicide); BfL—low B. firmus inoculum; BfH—high B. firmus inoculum.
Evaluation of Meloidogyne luci infestation in tomatoes in the microplot experiment.
| Treatment | Galling Index (0–10) | Number of Nematodes (g−1 Soil) | Root Fresh Weight (g) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NC | 7.8 ± 0.5 a | 2.9 ± 0.4 a | 130.8 ± 30.7 |
| PC | 4.8 ± 1.0 b | 2.0 ± 0.5 b | 146.1 ± 37.2 |
| BfH | 4.9 ± 0.9 b | 1.9 ± 0.3 b | 133.5 ± 35.4 |
| ANOVA statistics | n = 12, F2, 9 = 18.23, | n = 12, F2, 9 = 6.51, | n = 12, F2, 9 = 0.2233, |
Root galling index scale (0—no infestation, 10—completely infested). Data presented as averages with the standard deviation (±SD); ANOVA statistic (n—dataset size, Fdf, df—F-statistic with degrees of freedom (df) between groups, and df within groups; p—p-value); and Tukey’s HSD results. Means sharing a letter are not significantly different at p < 0.05. NC—negative control; PC—positive control (nematicide); BfH—high B. firmus inoculum.
Plant morphology parameters at 48 days after inoculation (DAI) in different treatments in the pot experiment.
| Treatment | Plant Height (cm) | Leaf Area (cm2) | Plant Dry Weight (g) | Root Fresh Weight (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC | 111.0 ± 9.6 | 2213.1 ± 198.2 a | 17.1 ± 2.0 a | 41.3 ± 4.2 a |
| PC | 108.1 ± 10.7 | 2765.9 ± 242.6 b | 22.8 ± 1.5 b | 36.6 ± 3.3 a |
| BfL | 109.6 ± 9.1 | 3503.4 ± 149.6 c | 23.7 ± 0.9 bc | 47.4 ± 6.3 a |
| BfH | 104.1 ± 6.3 | 3719.7 ± 110.5 c | 26.2 ± 0.6 c | 58.9 ± 6.6 b |
| ANOVA statistics | n = 16, F3, 12 = 0.43, | n = 16, F3, 12 = 57.67, | n = 16, F3, 12 = 32.42, | n = 16, F3, 12 = 13.35, |
Data presented as averages with the standard deviation (±SD); ANOVA statistic (n—dataset size, Fdf, df—F-statistic with degrees of freedom (df) between groups, and df within groups; p—p-value); and Tukey’s HSD results. Means sharing a letter are not significantly different at p < 0.05. NC—negative control; PC—positive control (nematicide); BfL—low B. firmus inoculum; BfH—high B. firmus inoculum.
Figure 1Data from the pot experiment showing the number of flowers per plant according to (a) treatment (dataset size, n = 16) and (b) the number of flowers per inflorescence in Bacillus firmus-inoculated/non-inoculated plants (n = 93), or (c) according to four tested treatments (n = 93). The numbers of flowers per plant are presented with the box plot and coloured according to the presence or absence of bacterial inoculum. Data for the number of flowers per inflorescence are presented with a violin plot with median (black bar) and mean values (red bar). The outline of the violin plot is a density function representing the underlying data frequency. Individual data points in the right-hand pane were coloured according to the number of flowers in each inflorescence (going from violet/blue representing smaller inflorescences to yellow for larger ones). Treatment means were separated using Tukey’s HSD (a,c) or a T-test (b). Means sharing a letter are not significantly different at p < 0.05. NC—negative control; PC—positive control (nematicide); BfL—low B. firmus inoculum; BfH—high B. firmus inoculum.
Physiological parameters assessing plant photosynthesis and chlorophyll a fluorescence at the end of both experiments with different treatments.
| Treatment | Photosynthesis Rate (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1) | Stomatal Conductance (mol H2O m−2 s−1) | Transpiration (mmol H2O m−2 s−1) | Effective Quantum Yield of PSII | ETR (μmol e-m−2 s−1) | Fv/Fm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC | 4.90 ± 2.87 | 0.20 ± 0.16 | 3.26 ± 2.29 | 0.47 ± 0.14 a | 39.96 ± 12.91 a | 0.74 ± 0.048 a |
| PC | 7.99 ± 1.18 | 0.20 ± 0.05 | 3.34 ± 0.81 | 0.73 ± 0.03 b | 61.14 ± 3.80 b | 0.80 ± 0.005 b |
| BfL | 8.43 ± 2.44 | 0.19 ± 0.09 | 3.42 ± 1.57 | 0.76 ± 0.01 b | 69.04 ± 4.06 b | 0.79 ± 0.002 b |
| BfH | 8.83 ± 0.95 | 0.22 ± 0.06 | 3.89 ± 0.89 | 0.75 ± 0.03 b | 67.03 ± 7.18 b | 0.80 ± 0.009 b |
| ANOVA statistics | n = 16, F3, 12 = 3.12, | n = 16, F3, 6.38 = 0.08, | n = 16, F3, 12 = 0.14, | n = 80, F3, 76 = 58.62, | n = 16, F3, 12 = 11.39, | n = 32, F3, 13.96 = 4.41, |
| NC | 15.48 ± 1.57 | 0.21 ± 0.03 | 3.17 ± 0.30 | 0.34 ± 0.08 a | 124.57 ± 15.94 | 0.72 ± 0.05 a |
| PC | 11.34 ± 5.17 | 0.12 ± 0.07 | 2.13 ± 1.02 | 0.36 ± 0.15 ab | 119.35 ± 48.36 | 0.76 ± 0.03 ab |
| BfH | 17.62 ± 2.99 | 0.20 ± 0.05 | 3.34 ± 0.54 | 0.48 ± 0.19 b | 145.31 ± 19.09 | 0.78 ± 0.04 b |
| ANOVA statistics | n = 12, F2, 9 = 3.21, | n = 12, F2, 9 = 3.51, | n = 12, F2, 9 = 3.61, | n = 60, F2, 33.65 = 4.19, | n = 12, F2, 9 = 3.91, | n = 24, F2, 21 = 4.17, |
Data presented as averages with the standard deviation (±SD); ANOVA statistic (n—dataset size, Fdf, df—F-statistic with degrees of freedom (df) between groups, and df within groups; p—p-value); and Tukey’s HSD results. Means sharing a letter are not significantly different at p < 0.05. NC—negative control; PC—positive control (nematicide); BfL—low B. firmus inoculum; BfH—high B. firmus inoculum.
Figure 2Microbial activity measurements of the substrate and soil from (a) pot experiments and (b) microplot experiments with different treatments. Data from the pot (n = 16) and microplot experiments (n = 12) are presented with a box-plot showing the results of ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test. Treatments sharing a letter were not significantly different at p < 0.05 and are coloured according to the presence or absence of Bacillus firmus inoculum. (c) Spatially resolved total microbial activity in the microplot soil, as measured by fluorescein release (µg g−1), ranging from lower (violet-blue) to higher (yellow) enzymatic activity, presented in an area heatmap. NC—negative control; PC—positive control (nematicide); BfL—low B. firmus inoculum; BfH—high B. firmus inoculum.
Figure 3Gene homologs in the B. firmus I-1582 genome in various biochemical pathways and/or processes associated with the plant growth-promoting (PGP) effects of rhizobacteria. Each box represents a single gene queried, with boxes coloured according to the identity (%) for the query, ranging from a low (violet) to high identity (yellow). Black boxes indicate the absence of a gene within the I-1582 genome assembly. DNRA—dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium.
Nutrient composition of tomato leaves in different treatments in the microplot experiment.
| Element/Parameter | Concentration in Different Treatments | ANOVA Statistics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC | PC | BfH | ||
| Relative chlorophyll content | 46.12 ± 2.07 a | 49.89 ± 4.23 a | 59.72 ± 6.42 b | F2, 9 = 9.34, |
| N, % | 2.48 ± 0.46 a | 1.82 ± 0.26 b | 2.77 ± 0.23 a | F2, 9 = 8.57, |
| P, % | 0.24 ± 0.05 | 0.19 ± 0.06 | 0.20 ± 0.01 | F2, 9 = 1.68, |
| K, % | 2.07 ± 0.51 | 1.70 ± 0.41 | 2.27 ± 0.20 | F2, 9 = 2.16, |
| Ca, % | 3.74 ± 0.75 a | 3.02 ± 0.72 ab | 2.18 ± 0.27 b | F2, 9 = 6.34, |
| Mg, % | 0.55 ± 0.17 | 0.57 ± 0.13 | 0.55 ± 0.09 | F2, 9 = 0.04, |
| S, % | 0.77 ± 0.14 a | 0.65 ± 0.21 ab | 0.41 ± 0.04 b | F2, 9 = 6.39, |
| Na, µg g−1 | 496.25 ± 199.16 | 460.35 ± 246.00 | 751.68 ± 193.44 | F2, 9 = 2.20, |
| Cu, µg g−1 | 8.84 ± 1.43 a | 5.40 ± 1.09 b | 8.62 ± 1.05 a | F2, 9 = 10.33, |
| Fe, µg g−1 | 145.44 ± 21.49 | 155.10 ± 48.69 | 125.73 ± 23.32 | F2, 9 = 0.80, |
| Mn, µg g−1 | 49.60 ± 17.34 | 44.83 ± 11.31 | 41.95 ± 10.76 | F2, 9 = 0.33, |
| Mo, µg g−1 | 3.78 ± 0.91 a | 3.16 ± 0.84 ab | 2.21 ± 0.21 b | F2, 9 = 4.75, |
| Zn, µg g−1 | 19.82 ± 3.29 ab | 16.15 ± 1.56 a | 23.14 ± 2.87 b | F2, 9 = 6.83, |
Dataset size for each analysis, n = 12. Data presented as averages with the standard deviation (±SD); ANOVA statistic (Fdf, df—F-statistic with degrees of freedom (df) between groups, and df within groups; p—p-value); and Tukey’s HSD results. Means sharing a letter are not significantly different at p < 0.05. NC—negative control; PC—positive control (nematicide); BfH—high B. firmus inoculum.
Summary of the partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) and partial least squares support vector machines (PLS-SVM) analysis. The described datasets were also used in principal component analysis (PCA).
| Analysis | Treatments | Dataset Size | PLS-DA | SVM | Accuracy (%) | Confusion Matrix | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Var (%) | RMSECV | c | Gamma | Ts | CV | ||||
| Treatment—pooled | BfL:BfH:PC:NC | 119 | 32.50 | 0.356 | 0.34 | 0.03 | 96.3 | 87.2 |
|
| Untreated vs. treated | NC:PC, BfL, BfH | 119 | 82.16 | 0.192 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 100 | 100 |
|
| BfL, BfH:NC, PC | 119 | 56.50 | 0.319 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 100 | 97.4 |
| |
| BfL:BfH | 64 | 55.44 | 0.274 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 100 | 100 |
| |
| Treatment—pooled | BfH:PC:NC | 82 | 79.10 | 0.298 | 0.24 | 0.02 | 98.9 | 96.3 |
|
Var—explained variance of the selected PLS components; RMSECV—root mean squared error of cross-validation of selected PLS components; c—SVM cost of classification parameter; gamma—SVM Gaussian kernel parameter; Ts—training set; CV—cross-validation; NC—negative control; PC—positive control (nematicide); BfL—low B. firmus inoculum; BfH—high B. firmus inoculum.
Figure 4Principal component analysis (PCA) score plots showing the variation in plant groups from the pot experiment with regard to treated (PC, BfL and BfH) or untreated plants (NC). The first three principal components (PCA 1, 2 and 3) explain more than 60% of observed variability and are presented in the combinations (a) PCA 1–2; (b) PCA 1–3; and (c) PCA 2–3. NC—negative control; PC—positive control (nematicide); BfL—low B. firmus inoculum; BfH—high B. firmus inoculum.
Figure 5Principal component analysis (PCA) score plots showing the variation in plant groups from the pot experiment in Bacillus firmus-inoculated (BfL and BfH) or non-inoculated plants (NC and PC). The first three principal components (PCA 1, 2 and 3) explain more than 60% of the observed variability and are presented in the combinations (a) PCA 1–2; (b) PCA 1–3; and (c) PCA 2–3. NC—negative control; PC—positive control (nematicide); BfL—low B. firmus inoculum; BfH—high B. firmus inoculum.
Figure 6Principal component analysis (PCA) score plots showing the variation in plant groups from the pot experiment in plants treated with high (BfH) or low-Bacillus firmus inoculum (BfL). The first three principal components (PCA 1, 2 and 3) explain more than 65% of observed variability and are presented in the combinations (a) PCA 1–2; (b) PCA 1–3; and (c) PCA 2–3.
Figure 7Averaged spectral signatures of the plants delineating the changes in reflectance at different wavelengths in the recorded spectrum. Signatures grouped according to treatments NC, PC, BfL and BfH in the pot experiment. Sample size per treatment, n = 4. NC—negative control; PC—positive control (nematicide); BfL—low B. firmus inoculum; BfH—high B. firmus inoculum.
Figure 8Principal component analysis (PCA) score plots showing the variation in plant groups from the microplot experiment in the Bacillus firmus-treated plants (BfH) and the negative (NC) and positive (PC) controls. The first three principal components (PCA 1, 2 and 3) explain more than 69% of observed variability and are presented in the combinations (a) PCA 1–2; (b) PCA 1–3; and (c) PCA 2–3.
Figure 9Loadings of the first partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) (a,b) and partial least squares regression (PLS-R) (c) component for the pooled samples. The data points show spectral ranges with correlation values higher than 0.7 or lower than −0.7 in (a) the pot experiment, (b) the microplot experiment and (c) the nutrient content datasets. NC—negative control; PC—positive control (nematicide); BfL—low B. firmus inoculum; BfH—high B. firmus inoculum.
Experimental design of the pot and microplot experiments and treatment group designations.
| Groups | Pot Experiment Treatments | Microplot Experiment Treatments | Treatment Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Without added bacteria (Bf−) | NC | NC | Untreated tomato plants infested with RKN (negative control) |
| PC | PC | Plants infested with RKN and treated with the chemical nematicide Velum Prime (positive control) | |
| With added bacteria (Bf+) | BfL | n/a | Plants infested with RKN and treated with the biological nematicide VOTiVO—seed coating only (Low |
| BfH | BfH | Plants infested with RKN and treated with the biological nematicide VOTiVO—seed coating and substrate drenching (High |
Bf—Bacillus firmus; n/a—treatment not performed.