Abstract
Drought stress is a prevalent environmental stress that adversely affects agricultural industries worldwide. In this study, bacterial isolates, AFFR02 and Mj1212, showed tolerance to polyethylene glycol-induced (PEG) drought stress (approximately 15%) and possess strong phosphate-solubilizing capacity. Moreover, we investigated the plant growth attributes, chlorophyll content, and ion uptake in alfalfa plants (Medicago sativa L) inoculated with isolates AFFR02 and Mj1212 under drought stress. We observed that drought stress drastically affects alfalfa’s growth attributes: shoot length: SL (24.88%), root length: RL (29.62%), shoot fresh weight: SFW (49.62%), root fresh weight: RFW (45.09%), stalk diameter: SD (52.84%), and chlorophyll content: CC (19.2%). However, in bacterial-inoculated alfalfa plants, the growth attributes significantly recovered were SL (12.42%), RL (21.30%), SFW (50.74%), RFW (46.42%), SD (76.72%), and CC (17.98%). In drought-stressed alfalfa plants, we observed a significant decrease in the relative water content (7.45%), whereas there was an increase in electrical conductivity (68.87%) and abscisic acid contents (164.42%). Antioxidant analysis showed a significant increase in total phenolic content (46.08%), DPPH-scavenging activity (39.66%), total flavonoid (13.68%), and superoxide dismutase (28.51%) in alfalfa treated with drought stress and bacterial isolates AFFR02 and Mj1212 simultaneously. Moreover, an increase in inductively coupled plasma (ICP) analysis of potassium (17.98%), phosphorous (11.14%), calcium (3.07%), and magnesium (6.71%) was recorded for bacteria-inoculated alfalfa plants under drought stress. In conclusion, bacterial isolates AFFR02 and Mj1212 enhance alfalfa growth under drought stress. Therefore, the isolates could be used as potential candidates in smart-climate agricultural practices in drought-stricken areas worldwide.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Drought stress decreased alfalfa shoot length by 24.88%.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativae0 - Treatment
- drought stresse0
- Outcome
- shoot length: SL (24.88%)e1
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- 24.88%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“drought stress drastically affects alfalfa’s growth attributes”
e1“shoot length: SL (24.88%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought stress decreased alfalfa root length by 29.62%.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- drought stresse0
- Outcome
- root length: RL (29.62%)e1
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- 29.62%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“drought stress drastically affects alfalfa’s growth attributes”
e1“root length: RL (29.62%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought stress decreased alfalfa shoot fresh weight by 49.62%.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- drought stresse0
- Outcome
- shoot fresh weight: SFW (49.62%)e1
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- 49.62%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“drought stress drastically affects alfalfa’s growth attributes”
e1“shoot fresh weight: SFW (49.62%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought stress decreased alfalfa root fresh weight by 45.09%.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- drought stresse0
- Outcome
- root fresh weight: RFW (45.09%)e1
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- 45.09%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“drought stress drastically affects alfalfa’s growth attributes”
e1“root fresh weight: RFW (45.09%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought stress decreased alfalfa stalk diameter by 52.84%.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- drought stresse0
- Outcome
- stalk diameter: SD (52.84%)e1
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- 52.84%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“drought stress drastically affects alfalfa’s growth attributes”
e1“stalk diameter: SD (52.84%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought stress decreased alfalfa chlorophyll content by 19.2%.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- drought stresse0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll content: CC (19.2%)e1
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- 19.2%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“drought stress drastically affects alfalfa’s growth attributes”
e1“chlorophyll content: CC (19.2%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacterial inoculation significantly recovered alfalfa shoot length by 12.42% under drought stress.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- bacterial-inoculatede0
- Outcome
- SLe1
- Direction
- recoverede0
- Value
- 12.42%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in bacterial-inoculated alfalfa plants, the growth attributes significantly recovered”
e1“SL (12.42%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacterial inoculation significantly recovered alfalfa root length by 21.30% under drought stress.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- bacterial-inoculatede0
- Outcome
- RLe1
- Direction
- recoverede0
- Value
- 21.30%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in bacterial-inoculated alfalfa plants, the growth attributes significantly recovered”
e1“RL (21.30%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacterial inoculation significantly recovered alfalfa shoot fresh weight by 50.74% under drought stress.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- bacterial-inoculatede0
- Outcome
- SFWe1
- Direction
- recoverede0
- Value
- 50.74%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in bacterial-inoculated alfalfa plants, the growth attributes significantly recovered”
e1“SFW (50.74%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacterial inoculation significantly recovered alfalfa root fresh weight by 46.42% under drought stress.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- bacterial-inoculatede0
- Outcome
- RFWe1
- Direction
- recoverede0
- Value
- 46.42%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in bacterial-inoculated alfalfa plants, the growth attributes significantly recovered”
e1“RFW (46.42%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacterial inoculation significantly recovered alfalfa stalk diameter by 76.72% under drought stress.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- bacterial-inoculatede0
- Outcome
- SDe1
- Direction
- recoverede0
- Value
- 76.72%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in bacterial-inoculated alfalfa plants, the growth attributes significantly recovered”
e1“SD (76.72%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacterial inoculation significantly recovered alfalfa chlorophyll content by 17.98% under drought stress.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- bacterial-inoculatede0
- Outcome
- CCe1
- Direction
- recoverede0
- Value
- 17.98%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in bacterial-inoculated alfalfa plants, the growth attributes significantly recovered”
e1“CC (17.98%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought-stressed alfalfa plants showed a significant decrease in relative water content of 7.45%.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- drought-stressede0
- Outcome
- relative water contente0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Value
- 7.45%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In drought-stressed alfalfa plants, we observed a significant decrease in the relative water content (7.45%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought-stressed alfalfa plants showed an increase in electrical conductivity of 68.87%.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- drought-stressede0
- Outcome
- electrical conductivitye1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Value
- 68.87%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In drought-stressed alfalfa plants”
e1“an increase in electrical conductivity (68.87%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought-stressed alfalfa plants showed an increase in abscisic acid contents of 164.42%.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- drought-stressede0
- Outcome
- abscisic acid contentse1
- Direction
- increaseinferrede1
- Value
- 164.42%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In drought-stressed alfalfa plants”
e1“abscisic acid contents (164.42%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Total phenolic content (46.08%) and DPPH-scavenging activity (39.66%) increased significantly in alfalfa treated with drought stress and the bacterial isolates.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- drought stress and bacterial isolates AFFR02 and Mj1212e1
- Outcome
- total phenolic content (46.08%), DPPH-scavenging activity (39.66%)e0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a significant increase in total phenolic content (46.08%), DPPH-scavenging activity (39.66%)”
e1“alfalfa treated with drought stress and bacterial isolates AFFR02 and Mj1212 simultaneously”
Claim · model-written summary
Total flavonoid (13.68%) and superoxide dismutase (28.51%) increased in alfalfa treated with drought stress and the bacterial isolates.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- drought stress and bacterial isolates AFFR02 and Mj1212e0
- Outcome
- total flavonoid (13.68%), and superoxide dismutase (28.51%)e0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total flavonoid (13.68%), and superoxide dismutase (28.51%) in alfalfa treated with drought stress and bacterial isolates AFFR02 and Mj1212 simultaneously”
Claim · model-written summary
Potassium (17.98%) and phosphorous (11.14%) increased in bacteria-inoculated alfalfa plants under drought stress.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- bacteria-inoculatede1
- Outcome
- potassium (17.98%), phosphorous (11.14%)e0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“an increase in inductively coupled plasma (ICP) analysis of potassium (17.98%), phosphorous (11.14%)”
e1“bacteria-inoculated alfalfa plants under drought stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium (3.07%) and magnesium (6.71%) increased in bacteria-inoculated alfalfa plants under drought stress.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- bacteria-inoculatede0
- Outcome
- calcium (3.07%), and magnesium (6.71%)e0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“calcium (3.07%), and magnesium (6.71%) was recorded for bacteria-inoculated alfalfa plants under drought stress”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose that the isolates could be used as potential candidates in smart-climate agricultural practices in drought-stricken areas.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Outcome
- potential candidates in smart-climate agricultural practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the isolates could be used as potential candidates in smart-climate agricultural practices in drought-stricken areas worldwide”
t0“Alfalfa”
The same questions in other papers
drought · physiology: antioxidant enzymes · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →inoculation · nutrient: content · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ
38 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
41 papers more in this group
See all 45 papers →drought · growth · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
68 papers more in this group
See all 72 papers →drought · soil: chemistry · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
drought · physiology: water · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →drought · quality: phytochemicals · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
inoculation · quality: phytochemicals · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →drought · physiology: pigments · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree
9 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.