Paper · 2012 · Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

Effects of Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria on Yield, Growth, and Some Physiological Characteristics of Wheat and Barley Plants

Metin Turan; Medine Gulluce; Fikrettin Şahin

8
claims
16
verbatim quotes
66
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

In 2009 a greenhouse experiment was conducted to determine the effects of boron (B) and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) treatments, applied either alone or in combination, on yield, plant growth, leaf total chlorophyll content, stomatal conductance, membrane leakage, and leaf relative water content of wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Bezostiya) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Tokak) plants. Results showed that alone or combined B (0, 1, 3, 6, 9 kg ha−1) and PGPR (Bacillus megaterium M3, Bacillus subtilis OSU142, Azospirillum brasilense Sp245, and Raoultella terrigena) treatments positively affected dry weight and physiological parameters searched in both species. Statistically significant differences were observed between bacterial inoculation and B fertilizer on root and shoot dry weight under non-cold-stress (NCS) and cold-stress (CS) conditions. Leaf total chlorophyll content (LTCC), stomatal conductance (SC), leaf relative water content (LRWC), and membrane leakage (ML) were negatively affected by CS conditions and decreased with reduced temperatures of media, but B and PGPR application alleviate the low-temperature deleterious effect in both species. The greatest SC and LRWC, and the lowest ML, were obtained by 6 kg B ha−1 combined with R. terrigena treatment. The greatest LTCC in both NCS and CS conditions was observed with B. megaterium M3 application alone.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Boron and PGPR treatments positively affected dry weight and physiological parameters in wheat and barley.

Treatment
alone or combined B (0, 1, 3, 6, 9 kg ha−1) and PGPR (Bacillus megaterium M3, Bacillus subtilis OSU142, Azospirillum brasilense Sp245, and Raoultella terrigena) treatmentse0
Interactor
Bacillus megaterium M3Priestia megateriume0symbiont
Outcome
dry weight and physiological parameterse0
Direction
positively affectede0

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 ↗
Priestia megaterium
Priestia megaterium · InteractorOsmoregulator / Osmoregulator at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“alone or combined B (0, 1, 3, 6, 9 kg ha−1) and PGPR (Bacillus megaterium M3, Bacillus subtilis OSU142, Azospirillum brasilense Sp245, and Raoultella terrigena) treatments positively affected dry weight and physiological parameters searched in both species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 428–684 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Bezostiya) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Tokak) plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 315–406 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial inoculation and boron fertilizer differed significantly in root and shoot dry weight under both cold conditions.

Treatment
bacterial inoculatione0
Outcome
root and shoot dry weighte0
Qualifier
non-cold-stress (NCS) and cold-stress (CS) conditionse0
Comparator
B fertilizere0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Statistically significant differences were observed between bacterial inoculation and B fertilizer on root and shoot dry weight under non-cold-stress (NCS) and cold-stress (CS) conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 686–873 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Bezostiya) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Tokak) plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 315–406 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cold stress decreased chlorophyll content, stomatal conductance, relative water content, and membrane leakage in wheat and barley.

Treatment
CS conditionse0
Outcome
Leaf total chlorophyll content (LTCC), stomatal conductance (SC), leaf relative water content (LRWC)e0
Direction
decreasede0

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

e0

“Leaf total chlorophyll content (LTCC), stomatal conductance (SC), leaf relative water content (LRWC), and membrane leakage (ML) were negatively affected by CS conditions and decreased with reduced temperatures of media”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 875–1093 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Bezostiya) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Tokak) plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 315–406 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cold stress decreased membrane leakage in wheat and barley.

Treatment
CS conditionse0
Outcome
membrane leakage (ML)e0
Direction
decreasede0

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

e0

“membrane leakage (ML) were negatively affected by CS conditions and decreased with reduced temperatures of media”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 981–1093 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Bezostiya) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Tokak) plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 315–406 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Boron and PGPR alleviated low temperature damage in both wheat and barley.

Treatment
B and PGPR applicatione0
Outcome
low-temperature deleterious effecte0
Direction
alleviatee0

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

e0

“B and PGPR application alleviate the low-temperature deleterious effect in both species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1099–1186 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Bezostiya) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Tokak) plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 315–406 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Boron at 6 kg per hectare with R. terrigena gave the greatest stomatal conductance and relative water content.

Treatment
6 kg B ha−1 combined with R. terrigena treatmente0
Interactor
R. terrigenaKlebsiella terrigenae0symbiont
Outcome
SC and LRWCe0
Direction
greateste0

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 ↗
Klebsiella terrigena
Klebsiella terrigena · InteractorYu Wang, Xiawei Jiang, Zemin Xu, Chaoqun Ying, Wei Yu, Yonghong Xiao · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The greatest SC and LRWC, and the lowest ML, were obtained by 6 kg B ha−1 combined with R. terrigena treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1188–1298 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Bezostiya) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Tokak) plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 315–406 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Boron at 6 kg per hectare with R. terrigena gave the lowest membrane leakage.

Treatment
6 kg B ha−1 combined with R. terrigena treatmente0
Interactor
R. terrigenaKlebsiella terrigenae0symbiont
Outcome
MLe0
Direction
loweste0

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 ↗
Klebsiella terrigena
Klebsiella terrigena · InteractorYu Wang, Xiawei Jiang, Zemin Xu, Chaoqun Ying, Wei Yu, Yonghong Xiao · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the lowest ML, were obtained by 6 kg B ha−1 combined with R. terrigena treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1218–1298 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Bezostiya) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Tokak) plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 315–406 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B. megaterium M3 alone gave the greatest leaf total chlorophyll under both cold conditions.

Treatment
B. megaterium M3 application alonee0
Interactor
B. megaterium M3Priestia megateriume0symbiont
Outcome
LTCCe0
Direction
greateste0

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 ↗
Priestia megaterium
Priestia megaterium · InteractorOsmoregulator / Osmoregulator at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The greatest LTCC in both NCS and CS conditions was observed with B. megaterium M3 application alone”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1300–1400 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Bezostiya) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Tokak) plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 315–406 · show in text ↑

Azospirillum brasilense · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

26 papers: 24 positive, 2 negative or no effect

23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

22 papers more in this group

See all 26 papers →

Priestia megaterium · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 10 positive, 1 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

Priestia megaterium · physiology: pigments · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Bacillus subtilis · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

39 papers: 39 positive, 0 negative or no effect

38 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

35 papers more in this group

See all 39 papers →

cold · physiology: pigments · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

14 papers: 7 positive, 7 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

inoculation · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

532 papers: 476 positive, 56 negative or no effect

475 papers in the same direction as this paper · 55 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

528 papers more in this group

See all 532 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.