| Literature DB >> 36231984 |
Sarmad Bashir1, Sadia Javed1, Khalid Mashay Al-Anazi2, Mohammad Abul Farah2, Sajad Ali3.
Abstract
Cadmium toxicity is one of the deleterious abiotic factors that reduce wheat production. Two different cultivars (Akbar and Dilkash) were compared for their cadmium (0, 40 and 80 mg/kg) tolerance and responses towards Bacillus subtilis NA2, Aspergillus niger PMI-118 and L-proline. Both microbes were tested for heavy metal tolerance and production of various plant hormones and biological active enzyme characteristics under normal and cadmium stress. A completely randomized design (two cultivars × four treatments × three cadmium levels × three replicates) was adopted using distilled water as a control. The growth promotion potential of these strains under cadmium stress was determined by N-fixation, IAA synthesis, P-solubilization, amylase and proteases production. A pot experiment under controlled conditions was conducted to evaluate the effect of bacteria, fungi, and L-proline under cadmium stress. It was indicated from the result that plant biomass (46.43%), shoot length (22.40%), root length (25.06%), chlorophyll (17.17%), total sugars (27.07%), total proteins (86.01%) and ascorbic acid (83.27%) were improved with inoculation under control and cadmium stress. The accumulation of total flavonoids (48.64%), total phenolics (24.88%), hydrogen peroxide (53.96%) and activities of antioxidant enzymes CAT (26.37%) and APX (43.71%) were reduced in the plants treated with bacteria, fungi and L-proline than those under control. With parallel aids, Bacillus subtilis NA2 showed a higher cadmium tolerance and plant growth stability as compared to Aspergillus niger PMI-118 and L-proline and may be adopted in the future.Entities:
Keywords: abiotic stress; bio-stimulation; cereal crops; heavy metals; microorganisms; plants; soils
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36231984 PMCID: PMC9564855 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912683
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Greenhouse experimental conditions for wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) plants inoculated with Bacillus subtilis, Aspergillus niger and L proline under control and cadmium stress.
| Parameters | Details |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Control (T0) | Sterilized distilled water |
| Bacterial (T1) | |
| Fungal (T2) | |
| Chemical (T3) | L-proline |
|
| |
| Wheat (V1) | Akbar |
| Wheat (V2) | Dilkash |
|
| |
| Cadmium CdCl2 (S0) | 0 mg/kg of soil |
| Cadmium CdCl2 (S1) | 40 mg/kg of soil |
| Cadmium CdCl2 (S2) | 80 mg/kg of soil |
|
| |
| Temperature (Day) | 31 °C |
| Temperature (Night) | 24 °C |
| Soil (Per Pod) | 350 g |
Characterization of the microbes for the metal tolerance, enzyme production and PGP traits.
| Characteristics |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| IAA Synthesis | ||
| IAA (without tryptophan) | - | - |
| IAA (with tryptophan) | 23.46 (μg/mL) | 56.41 (μg/mL) |
| IAA (CdCl2 800 mg/L + tryptophan) | 14.49 (μg/mL) | 36.21 (μg/mL) |
| Nitrogen Fixation | ||
| N-free semi-solid media | + | + |
| N-free malate agar media | +++ | +++ |
| Ammonia Production | ||
| Nessler’s reagent | +++ | +++ |
| Ammonia Production (μmol/mL) | 6.89 | 5.34 |
| Phosphate solubilization | ||
| NBRIP media | +++ | - |
| Pikovaskkaya’s agar media | + | ++ |
| Phosphate solubilization (ppm) | 42.2 | 38.1 |
| Enzyme Production | ||
| Amylase | +++ | +++ |
| Proteases (Zone mm) | 18 ± 1 | 12 ± 1 |
| CdCl2 Tolerance | ||
| 0 mg/L | +++ | +++ |
| 200 mg/L | +++ | +++ |
| 400 mg/L | +++ | +++ |
| 600 mg/L | +++ | ++ |
| 700 mg/L | ++ | ++ |
| 800 mg/L | ++ | + |
| 900 mg/L | ++ | - |
| 1000 mg/L | + | - |
| 1100 mg/L | - | - |
| 1200 mg/L | - | - |
-, +, ++, and +++ = negative, positive, high positive and strong positive, respectively.
Statistically mean squares with significant level from the three-way analysis of variance for various physiological and biochemical parameters of the wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) plants inoculated with Bacillus subtilis, Aspergillus niger and L-proline under the control (0 mg/kg soil) and cadmium stress (40, 80 mg/kg soil) conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | 0.281 ns | 0.296 ns | 0.029 ns | 0.039 ns | 0.787 ns |
|
| 2 | 21.69 *** | 22.22 *** | 47.78 *** | 49.58 *** | 30.08 *** |
|
| 3 | 15.34 *** | 26.20 *** | 6.693 *** | 17.33 *** | 5.461 *** |
|
| 2 | 0.339 ns | 0.354 ns | 0.439 | 0.454 ns | 0.306 ns |
|
| 3 | 0.189 ns | 0.203 ns | 0.359 ns | 0.342 ns | 0.109 ns |
|
| 6 | 0.271 ns | 0.286 ns | 1.527 ns | 1.800 ns | 0.624 ns |
|
| 6 | 0.209 ns | 0.219 ns | 0.360 ns | 0.373 ns | 0.095 ns |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | 1.368 ns | 0.199 ns | 0.889 ns | 0.017 ns | 2.067 ns |
|
| 2 | 132.6 *** | 4.401 * | 1.406 ns | 3.524 ns | 1.790 ns |
|
| 3 | 15.72 *** | 1.697 ns | 1.875 ns | 2.209 * | 0.282 ns |
|
| 2 | 0.297 ns | 0.057 ns | 1.194 ns | 0.150 ns | 1.198 ns |
|
| 3 | 0.715 ns | 0.065 ns | 1.061 ns | 0.196 ns | 1.633 ns |
|
| 6 | 1.736 ns | 0.267 ns | 0.298 ns | 0.162 ns | 0.887 ns |
|
| 6 | 0.462 ns | 0.050 ns | 0.269 ns | 0.021 ns | 0.528 ns |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | 0.105 ns | 0.003 ns | 18.07 *** | 7.809 ** | 6.668 * |
|
| 2 | 3.288 * | 4.961 * | 760.3 *** | 5317 *** | 2112 *** |
|
| 3 | 1.603 ns | 2.033 ns | 441.9 *** | 2617 *** | 773.7 *** |
|
| 2 | 0.605 ns | 0.015 ns | 5.884 ** | 27.48 *** | 6.047 ** |
|
| 3 | 0.178 ns | 0.008 ns | 12.54 *** | 3.295 * | 19.39 *** |
|
| 6 | 0.252 ns | 0.824 ns | 7.946 *** | 224.1 *** | 69.66 *** |
|
| 6 | 0.127 ns | 0.002 ns | 4.275 ** | 22.18 *** | 6.147 *** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | 5.152 * | 7.621 ** | 2.373 ns | 0.008 ns | 0.177 ns |
|
| 2 | 808.3 *** | 1756 *** | 2358 *** | 128.7 *** | 39.32 *** |
|
| 3 | 458.4 *** | 1429 *** | 1231 *** | 98.81 *** | 12.33 *** |
|
| 2 | 26.57 *** | 12.40 *** | 6.416 ** | 0.384 ns | 0.441 ns |
|
| 3 | 4.412 ** | 17.37 *** | 39.60 *** | 0.418 ns | 0.054 ns |
|
| 6 | 42.26 *** | 98.01 *** | 131.3 *** | 6.476 *** | 0.251 ns |
|
| 6 | 8.001 *** | 21.75 *** | 15.84 *** | 0.444 ns | 0.333 ns |
ns = non-significant; *, ** and *** = significant at 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 levels, respectively.
Figure 1Shoot fresh weight (A) root fresh weight (B) shoot dry weight (C) root dry weight (D) shoot length (E) root length (F) of two cultivars of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) treated with Bacillus subtilis, Aspergillus niger and L-proline subjected to the cadmium stress condition (Mean ± S.E.). Here V1 = AKBAR and V2 = DILKASH. The lower-case letters represent the significant difference in data.
Figure 2Chlorophyll a (A) chlorophyll b (B) total chlorophyll (C) chlorophyll a/b (D) carotenoids (E) and anthocyanin (F) contents of two cultivars of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) treated with Bacillus subtilis, Aspergillus niger and L-proline subjected to the cadmium stress conditions (Mean ± S.E.). Here V1 = AKBAR and V2 = DILKASH. The lower-case letters represent the significant difference in data.
Figure 3Total flavonoid contents (A) total phenolic contents (B) total soluble sugars (C) total soluble proteins (D) hydrogen peroxide (E) ascorbic acid (F) contents, catalase (G) ascorbate peroxidase (H) activity of two cultivars of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) treated with Bacillus subtilis, Aspergillus niger and L-proline subjected to cadmium stress conditions (Mean ± S.E.). Here V1 = AKBAR and V2 = DILKASH. The lower-case letters represent the significant difference in data.
Pearson’s coefficient correlation values of the estimated attributes of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) inoculated with Bacillus subtilis, Aspergillus niger and L-proline, showing significant differences under cadmium stress.
| SFW | SDW | RFW | RDW | SL | RL | Chla | Chlb | TChl | Chlab | Caro | Antho | Flavo | Pheno | TSS | TSP | H2O2 | AsA | CAT | APX | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
| 0.981 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
| 0.324 | 0.279 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
|
| 0.526 | 0.476 | 0.242 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
|
| 0.511 | 0.490 | 0.121 | 0.628 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
|
| 0.616 | 0.543 | 0.201 | 0.728 | 0.698 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
|
| 0.413 | 0.383 | 0.092 | 0.324 | 0.290 | 0.329 | 1 | |||||||||||||
|
| 0.217 | 0.190 | 0.099 | 0.233 | 0.165 | 0.205 | 0.508 | 1 | ||||||||||||
|
| 0.381 | 0.348 | 0.109 | 0.329 | 0.274 | 0.319 | 0.914 | 0.812 | 1 | |||||||||||
|
| 0.115 | 0.114 | −0.009 | 0.049 | 0.067 | 0.064 | 0.310 | −0.616 | −0.079 | 1 | ||||||||||
|
| 0.335 | 0.303 | 0.130 | 0.320 | 0.222 | 0.284 | 0.731 | 0.886 | 0.910 | −0.245 | 1 | |||||||||
|
| 0.403 | 0.390 | 0.133 | 0.411 | 0.431 | 0.395 | 0.212 | 0.333 | 0.300 | −0.098 | 0.389 | 1 | ||||||||
|
| −0.688 | −0.631 | −0.154 | −0.793 | −0.695 | −0.812 | −0.469 | −0.304 | −0.460 | −0.085 | −0.404 | −0.459 | 1 | |||||||
|
| −0.725 | −0.710 | −0.161 | −0.787 | −0.699 | −0.775 | −0.436 | −0.251 | −0.413 | −0.100 | −0.354 | −0.426 | 0.903 | 1 | ||||||
|
| 0.7109 | 0.688 | 0.188 | 0.805 | 0.663 | 0.785 | 0.429 | 0.294 | 0.428 | 0.063 | 0.420 | 0.436 | −0.866 | −0.861 | 1 | |||||
|
| 0.703 | 0.683 | 0.102 | 0.732 | 0.656 | 0.756 | 0.412 | 0.340 | 0.438 | −0.008 | 0.402 | 0.500 | −0.852 | −0.817 | 0.866 | 1 | ||||
|
| −0.707 | −0.686 | −0.152 | −0.714 | −0.703 | −0.742 | −0.406 | −0.324 | −0.426 | 0.011 | −0.371 | −0.477 | 0.913 | 0.877 | −0.820 | −0.875 | 1 | |||
|
| 0.653 | 0.628 | 0.224 | 0.788 | 0.668 | 0.744 | 0.402 | 0.273 | 0.400 | 0.062 | 0.385 | 0.396 | −0.865 | −0.885 | 0.921 | 0.786 | −0.847 | 1 | ||
|
| −0.756 | −0.763 | −0.095 | −0.682 | −0.640 | −0.733 | −0.358 | −0.265 | −0.367 | −0.008 | −0.335 | −0.458 | 0.831 | 0.900 | −0.824 | −0.835 | 0.857 | −0.808 | 1 | |
|
| −0.632 | −0.605 | −0.221 | −0.679 | −0.590 | −0.699 | −0.448 | −0.294 | −0.441 | −0.060 | −0.431 | −0.416 | 0.793 | 0.796 | −0.796 | −0.761 | 0.771 | −0.764 | 0.692 | 1 |
SL = shoot length; RL = root length; SFW = shoot fresh weight; SDW = shoot dry weight; RFW = root fresh weight; RDW = root dry weight; Chl a = chlorophyll a; T Chl = total chlorophyll; Chl b = Chlorophyll b; Antho = anthocyanin; Caro = Carotenoids; Flav = flavonoids; AsA = ascorbic acid; TSS = total soluble sugars; Pheno = Phenolics; TSP = total soluble protein; H2O2 = hydrogen peroxide; CAT = catalase; APX = ascorbate peroxidase.
Figure 4Component plot in the rotated space by the factor analysis of the studied parameters of wheat treated with bacteria, fungi and L-proline under control (0 mg/kg soil) and cadmium containment soil (40, 80 mg/kg soil) conditions.