Paper · 1988 · Journal of Applied Bacteriology

Plant growth‐altering effects of Azospirillum brasilense and Bacillus C–11–25 on two wheat cultivars

R.M.N. Kucey

10
claims
24
verbatim quotes
48
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The effect of Azospirillum brasilense Cd, Bacillus C–11–25, indole acetic acid, gibberellic acid and cytokinin on plant growth characteristics of two wheat ( Triticum aestivum L. emend Thell) cultivars was studied under laboratory and greenhouse conditions. Responses of wheat plants to bacterial inoculation were similar to those caused by the addition of gibberellic acid in growth pouches. Chester and Fielder wheat varieties differed in responses to the bacteria and hormone additions. When added to growth pouches, bacterial culture filtrates and dead bacterial cells caused plant growth responses similar to those caused by the addition of live cells. Bacteria and hormone additions resulted in increased permeability of Fielder wheat to 15 Nlabelled nitrate, and decreased nitrate permeability of Chester wheat. Bacterial inoculation of soil in pots caused 15 N isotope dilution in Fielder but not in Chester wheat. Hormone addition to pots caused isotope dilution in Chester wheat. It appeared that genetic differences between cultivars affected plant growth responses. The accuracy of estimates of N 2 fixation by associative bacteria based on 15 N isotope dilution calculations may be reduced if control plants differ in plant response to these bacteria.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Responses of wheat to bacterial inoculation were similar to those caused by gibberellic acid addition in growth pouches.

Treatment
bacterial inoculatione1
Interactor
Azospirillum brasilense CdAzospirillum brasilensee0symbiont
Second interactor
Bacillus C–11–25e0symbiont
Outcome
Responses of wheat plantse1
Qualifier
similare1
Comparator
addition of gibberellic acide1

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Azospirillum brasilense
Azospirillum brasilense · InteractorCristiane Colodel · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“two wheat cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–100 · show in text ↑
e0

“Azospirillum brasilense Cd, Bacillus C–11–25”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 14–58 · show in text ↑
e1

“Responses of wheat plants to bacterial inoculation were similar to those caused by the addition of gibberellic acid in growth pouches. Chester and Fielder wheat varieties differed in responses to the bacteria and hormone additions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–488 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chester and Fielder wheat varieties differed in their responses to bacteria and hormone additions.

Material
Chester and Fieldere1
Outcome
responses to the bacteria and hormone additionse1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“two wheat cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–100 · show in text ↑
e1

“Responses of wheat plants to bacterial inoculation were similar to those caused by the addition of gibberellic acid in growth pouches. Chester and Fielder wheat varieties differed in responses to the bacteria and hormone additions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–488 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial culture filtrates and dead bacterial cells caused plant growth responses similar to those caused by live cells.

Treatment
bacterial culture filtrates and dead bacterial cellse3
Interactor
Azospirillum brasilense CdAzospirillum brasilensee0symbiont
Second interactor
Bacillus C–11–25e0symbiont
Outcome
plant growth responsese3
Qualifier
similare3
Comparator
live cellse3

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Azospirillum brasilense
Azospirillum brasilense · InteractorCristiane Colodel · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“two wheat cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–100 · show in text ↑
e0

“Azospirillum brasilense Cd, Bacillus C–11–25”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 14–58 · show in text ↑
e3

“When added to growth pouches, bacterial culture filtrates and dead bacterial cells caused plant growth responses similar to those caused by the addition of live cells”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 490–656 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacteria and hormone additions increased nitrate permeability of Fielder wheat to 15N-labelled nitrate.

Material
Fieldere4
Treatment
Bacteria and hormone additionse4
Outcome
permeability of Fielder wheat to 15 Nlabelled nitratee4
Direction
increasede4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“two wheat cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–100 · show in text ↑
e4

“Bacteria and hormone additions resulted in increased permeability of Fielder wheat to 15 Nlabelled nitrate, and decreased nitrate permeability of Chester wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 658–817 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacteria and hormone additions decreased nitrate permeability of Chester wheat.

Material
Chestere4
Treatment
Bacteria and hormone additionse4
Outcome
nitrate permeability of Chester wheate4
Direction
decreasede4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“two wheat cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–100 · show in text ↑
e4

“Bacteria and hormone additions resulted in increased permeability of Fielder wheat to 15 Nlabelled nitrate, and decreased nitrate permeability of Chester wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 658–817 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial inoculation of soil in pots caused 15N isotope dilution in Fielder wheat.

Material
Fieldere6
Treatment
Bacterial inoculation of soil in potse6
Interactor
Azospirillum brasilense CdAzospirillum brasilensee0symbiont
Second interactor
Bacillus C–11–25e0symbiont
Outcome
15 N isotope dilutione6
Setting
potse6

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Azospirillum brasilense
Azospirillum brasilense · InteractorCristiane Colodel · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“two wheat cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–100 · show in text ↑
e0

“Azospirillum brasilense Cd, Bacillus C–11–25”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 14–58 · show in text ↑
e6

“Bacterial inoculation of soil in pots caused 15 N isotope dilution in Fielder but not in Chester wheat. Hormone addition to pots caused isotope dilution in Chester wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 819–988 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial inoculation of soil in pots did not cause 15N isotope dilution in Chester wheat.

Material
Chestere6
Treatment
Bacterial inoculation of soil in potse6
Interactor
Azospirillum brasilense CdAzospirillum brasilensee0symbiont
Second interactor
Bacillus C–11–25e0symbiont
Outcome
15 N isotope dilutione6
Setting
potse6

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Azospirillum brasilense
Azospirillum brasilense · InteractorCristiane Colodel · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“two wheat cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–100 · show in text ↑
e0

“Azospirillum brasilense Cd, Bacillus C–11–25”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 14–58 · show in text ↑
e6

“Bacterial inoculation of soil in pots caused 15 N isotope dilution in Fielder but not in Chester wheat. Hormone addition to pots caused isotope dilution in Chester wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 819–988 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hormone addition to pots caused isotope dilution in Chester wheat.

Material
Chestere6
Treatment
Hormone addition to potse6
Outcome
isotope dilutione6
Setting
potse6

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“two wheat cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–100 · show in text ↑
e6

“Bacterial inoculation of soil in pots caused 15 N isotope dilution in Fielder but not in Chester wheat. Hormone addition to pots caused isotope dilution in Chester wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 819–988 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Genetic differences between wheat cultivars appear to affect their growth responses to the bacteria.

Outcome
plant growth responsese5
Qualifier
genetic differences between cultivarse5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“two wheat cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–100 · show in text ↑
e5

“genetic differences between cultivars affected plant growth responses”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1007–1076 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The accuracy of 15N-based N2 fixation estimates by associative bacteria may be reduced if control plants respond differently to the bacteria.

Interactor
associative bacteriae7symbiont
Outcome
accuracy of estimates of N 2 fixatione7
Direction
reducede7
Comparator
control plantse7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“two wheat cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–100 · show in text ↑
e7

“The accuracy of estimates of N 2 fixation by associative bacteria based on 15 N isotope dilution calculations may be reduced if control plants differ in plant response to these bacteria”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1078–1263 · show in text ↑

inoculation · Azospirillum brasilense · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

25 papers: 21 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

21 papers more in this group

See all 25 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.