Abstract
In an open field trial on two agricultural soils in NW Italy, the impact of two seed-applied biostimulants on the rhizosphere bacterial community of young maize plants was evaluated. The 16S rDNA profiling was carried out on control and treated plant rhizosphere samples collected at the 4-leaf stage and on bulk soil. In both soils, the rhizospheres were significantly enriched in Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Bacteriodetes, while the abundances of Acidobacteria, Cloroflexi and Gemmatimonadetes decreased compared with bulk soil. Among the culturable bacteria genera that showed an increase by both biostimulants, most are known to be beneficial for nutrient uptake, such as Opitutus, Chryseolinea, Terrimonas, Rhodovastum, Cohnella, Pseudoduganella and the species Anaeromyxobacter dehalogenans; others are known to be involved in root growth, such as Niastella, Labrys, Chloroflexia and Thermomonas; or in plant defence, such as Ohtaekwangia, Quadrisphaera, Turneriella, and Actinoallomurus. Both biostimulants were also found to stimulate gen. Nannocystis, a potential biocompetitive agent against aflatoxigenic Aspergillus moulds. Under controlled conditions, both biostimulants enhanced the shoot and root biomass at the 4–5 leaf stage. We conclude that the biostimulants do not decrease the biodiversity of the microbial community rhizosphere of young maize plants, but stimulate rare bacterial taxa, some involved in plant growth and pathogen resistance, a result that may have implications in improving crop management.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 6
Claim · model-written summary
The biostimulants did not decrease the biodiversity of the rhizosphere microbial community of young maize plants.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the impact of two seed-applied biostimulants on the rhizosphere bacterial community of young maize plants was evaluated”
e1“the biostimulants do not decrease the biodiversity of the microbial community rhizosphere of young maize plants, but stimulate rare bacterial taxa”
Claim · model-written summary
In both soils, the rhizospheres of young maize plants were enriched in Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Bacteroidetes compared with bulk soil.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the impact of two seed-applied biostimulants on the rhizosphere bacterial community of young maize plants was evaluated”
e2“In both soils, the rhizospheres were significantly enriched in Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Bacteriodetes, while the abundances of Acidobacteria, Cloroflexi and Gemmatimonadetes decreased compared with bulk soil”
Claim · model-written summary
In both soils, the rhizospheres of young maize plants had decreased abundances of Acidobacteria, Chloroflexi and Gemmatimonadetes compared with bulk soil.
- Outcome
- the abundances of Acidobacteria, Cloroflexi and Gemmatimonadetese2
- Direction
- decreasede2
- Comparator
- bulk soile2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the impact of two seed-applied biostimulants on the rhizosphere bacterial community of young maize plants was evaluated”
e2“In both soils, the rhizospheres were significantly enriched in Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Bacteriodetes, while the abundances of Acidobacteria, Cloroflexi and Gemmatimonadetes decreased compared with bulk soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Both biostimulants stimulated Nannocystis, a potential biocompetitive agent against aflatoxigenic Aspergillus moulds, in maize rhizosphere.
- Treatment
- Both biostimulantse3
- Interactor
- NannocystisNannocystise3biocontrol_agent
- Second interactor
- aflatoxigenic Aspergillus mouldse3other
- Outcome
- gen. Nannocystise3
- Direction
- stimulatee3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the impact of two seed-applied biostimulants on the rhizosphere bacterial community of young maize plants was evaluated”
e3“Both biostimulants were also found to stimulate gen. Nannocystis, a potential biocompetitive agent against aflatoxigenic Aspergillus moulds”
Claim · model-written summary
Both biostimulants increased culturable bacteria genera in the maize rhizosphere, most of them known to be beneficial for nutrient uptake.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the impact of two seed-applied biostimulants on the rhizosphere bacterial community of young maize plants was evaluated”
e4“Among the culturable bacteria genera that showed an increase by both biostimulants, most are known to be beneficial for nutrient uptake”
Claim · model-written summary
Under controlled conditions, both biostimulants enhanced shoot and root biomass of young maize plants at the 4–5 leaf stage.
- Organ / stage
- 4–5 leaf stagee5
- Treatment
- both biostimulantse5
- Outcome
- shoot and root biomasse5
- Direction
- enhancede5
- Setting
- controlled conditionse5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the impact of two seed-applied biostimulants on the rhizosphere bacterial community of young maize plants was evaluated”
e5“Under controlled conditions, both biostimulants enhanced the shoot and root biomass at the 4–5 leaf stage”
The same questions in other papers
other · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →other · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
163 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
180 papers more in this group
See all 184 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.