Abstract
Soil salinity is one of the most important abiotic stresses limiting crop growth and production worldwide. Some microorganisms can improve the plants’ tolerance to salinity. For this purpose, a greenhouse experiment was performed to understand the influence of various microorganisms on soil biological indices and wheat growth under different saline conditions. The factors varied in the experiment were the microbial treatment (rhizobacteria, mycorrhizal fungi, endophytic fungus, and control) and salinity stress (0.5, 8, and 14 dS m−1). Rhizobacteria were isolated from saline soils, but the fungi were prepared from a microbial bank. Overall, ten isolates were purified, and three with promising growth-promoting properties were identified using phenotypic and molecular methods. The selected isolates belonged to the genera Pseudomonas (P. aeruginosa Ur83 and P. fluorescens Ur67) and Stenotrophomonas (S. maltophilia Ur52). Soil quality indices were found to decrease with increasing salinity, but inoculation with microorganisms alleviated this decline. Inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) increased basal respiration, substrate-induced respiration, microbial biomass carbon, acid and alkaline phosphatase activities, and carbon availability by factors of 1.37, 1.27, 1.83, 3.07, 1.29, and 1.11, respectively. These results show that inoculation with symbiotic microorganisms can improve agricultural soil quality under saline conditions and may thus be valuable in agriculture.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Soil quality indices decreased with increasing salinity.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume1 - Treatment
- increasing salinitye2
- Outcome
- Soil quality indicese2
- Direction
- decreasee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“soil biological indices and wheat growth under different saline conditions”
e2“Soil quality indices were found to decrease with increasing salinity, but inoculation with microorganisms alleviated this decline”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with microorganisms alleviated the salinity-driven decline in soil quality indices, compared with the control.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- inoculation with microorganismse2
- Outcome
- declinee2
- Direction
- alleviatede2
- Comparator
- controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“soil biological indices and wheat growth under different saline conditions”
e2“Soil quality indices were found to decrease with increasing salinity, but inoculation with microorganisms alleviated this decline”
e4“the microbial treatment (rhizobacteria, mycorrhizal fungi, endophytic fungus, and control)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with PGPR increased basal respiration by a factor of 1.37 relative to controls in saline soil.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs)e3
- Outcome
- basal respiratione3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 1.37e3
- Comparator
- controle4
- Setting
- greenhousee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“soil biological indices and wheat growth under different saline conditions”
e3“Inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) increased basal respiration, substrate-induced respiration, microbial biomass carbon, acid and alkaline phosphatase activities, and carbon availability by factors of 1.37, 1.27, 1.83, 3.07, 1.29, and 1.11, respectively”
e4“the microbial treatment (rhizobacteria, mycorrhizal fungi, endophytic fungus, and control)”
e5“a greenhouse experiment was performed to understand the influence”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with PGPR increased substrate-induced respiration by a factor of 1.27 relative to controls in saline soil.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs)e3
- Outcome
- substrate-induced respiratione3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 1.27e3
- Comparator
- controle4
- Setting
- greenhousee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“soil biological indices and wheat growth under different saline conditions”
e3“Inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) increased basal respiration, substrate-induced respiration, microbial biomass carbon, acid and alkaline phosphatase activities, and carbon availability by factors of 1.37, 1.27, 1.83, 3.07, 1.29, and 1.11, respectively”
e4“the microbial treatment (rhizobacteria, mycorrhizal fungi, endophytic fungus, and control)”
e5“a greenhouse experiment was performed to understand the influence”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with PGPR increased microbial biomass carbon by a factor of 1.83 relative to controls in saline soil.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs)e3
- Outcome
- microbial biomass carbone3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 1.83e3
- Comparator
- controle4
- Setting
- greenhousee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“soil biological indices and wheat growth under different saline conditions”
e3“Inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) increased basal respiration, substrate-induced respiration, microbial biomass carbon, acid and alkaline phosphatase activities, and carbon availability by factors of 1.37, 1.27, 1.83, 3.07, 1.29, and 1.11, respectively”
e4“the microbial treatment (rhizobacteria, mycorrhizal fungi, endophytic fungus, and control)”
e5“a greenhouse experiment was performed to understand the influence”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with PGPR increased phosphatase activities (acid) by a factor of 3.07 relative to controls in saline soil.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs)e3
- Outcome
- phosphatase activitiese3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 3.07e3
- Qualifier
- acide3
- Comparator
- controle4
- Setting
- greenhousee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“soil biological indices and wheat growth under different saline conditions”
e3“Inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) increased basal respiration, substrate-induced respiration, microbial biomass carbon, acid and alkaline phosphatase activities, and carbon availability by factors of 1.37, 1.27, 1.83, 3.07, 1.29, and 1.11, respectively”
e4“the microbial treatment (rhizobacteria, mycorrhizal fungi, endophytic fungus, and control)”
e5“a greenhouse experiment was performed to understand the influence”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with PGPR increased phosphatase activities (alkaline) by a factor of 1.29 relative to controls in saline soil.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs)e3
- Outcome
- phosphatase activitiese3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 1.29e3
- Qualifier
- alkalinee3
- Comparator
- controle4
- Setting
- greenhousee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“soil biological indices and wheat growth under different saline conditions”
e3“Inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) increased basal respiration, substrate-induced respiration, microbial biomass carbon, acid and alkaline phosphatase activities, and carbon availability by factors of 1.37, 1.27, 1.83, 3.07, 1.29, and 1.11, respectively”
e4“the microbial treatment (rhizobacteria, mycorrhizal fungi, endophytic fungus, and control)”
e5“a greenhouse experiment was performed to understand the influence”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with PGPR increased carbon availability by a factor of 1.11 relative to controls in saline soil.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs)e3
- Outcome
- carbon availabilitye3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 1.11e3
- Comparator
- controle4
- Setting
- greenhousee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“soil biological indices and wheat growth under different saline conditions”
e3“Inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) increased basal respiration, substrate-induced respiration, microbial biomass carbon, acid and alkaline phosphatase activities, and carbon availability by factors of 1.37, 1.27, 1.83, 3.07, 1.29, and 1.11, respectively”
e4“the microbial treatment (rhizobacteria, mycorrhizal fungi, endophytic fungus, and control)”
e5“a greenhouse experiment was performed to understand the influence”
Claim · model-written summary
The selected isolates were Pseudomonas aeruginosa Ur83 and Pseudomonas fluorescens Ur67, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia Ur52.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Interactor
- P. aeruginosa Ur83
Pseudomonas aeruginosae6symbiont - Second interactor
- P. fluorescens Ur67
.JPG?width=60)
Pseudomonas fluorescense6symbiont - Outcome
- selected isolatese6
- Qualifier
- S. maltophilia Ur52e6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.JPG?width=500)
Verbatim
e1“soil biological indices and wheat growth under different saline conditions”
e6“The selected isolates belonged to the genera Pseudomonas (P. aeruginosa Ur83 and P. fluorescens Ur67) and Stenotrophomonas (S. maltophilia Ur52)”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · physiology: respiration · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
inoculation · physiology: enzyme activity · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
27 papers more in this group
See all 31 papers →inoculation · soil: biology · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
57 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
61 papers more in this group
See all 65 papers →inoculation · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
101 papers more in this group
See all 105 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.