Paper · 2022 · Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi

Determination of Optimum PGPB-Priming Protocol on Germination and Seedling Growth in Lentil

Murat ERMAN; Fatih ÇIĞ; Mustafa CERİTOĞLU

6
claims
16
verbatim quotes
5
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Plant growth promoting bacterias (PGPBs) can be described as bacterial strains increasing water and nutrient uptake, gaining nitrogen and phosphorus to plants by biological nitrogen fixation and phosphate mineralization, promoting plant growth and enabling to improve the tolerance to stress factors due to mechanisms as secretion of various phytohormones, vitamins and growth regulators, restriction of ethylene synthesis with ACC deaminase activity, decreasing of pathogen damage by the secret of antibiotic and fungicidal compounds. This study was carried out in a laboratory of Field crops in Siirt University under controlled conditions. The 2 original bacterial strains (KF3B and KF63C) and 5 different priming times (control, 1, 2, 4 and 6 h) were applied on the Fırat-87 lentil variety. The study was laid out in a completely randomized design with 3 replications. It was aimed with this study that investigating effects based on bacterial biodiversity and priming time on germination characteristics and seedling growth in lentils. According to results, biodiversity-induced differences were observed in germination percentage, seedling fresh weight, seedling dry weight, seedling length and seedling vigor index while priming time significantly affected all investigated parameters except for germination percentage. However, the interaction of strains and priming times did not lead to any significant differences in traits. In conclusion, microbial diversity and priming time have a critical role on successful of the priming technique. Optimum priming time for lentils was determined as 4 hours. Besides, the strain of KF63C had a noteworthy stimulative effect on especially seedling growth in the experiment.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial strains differed in lentil germination percentage, seedling weights, length and vigor index.

Taxon
LentilLens culinarist0
Treatment
bacterial strainse1
Interactor
bacterial strainse1symbiont
Outcome
germination percentage, seedling fresh weight, seedling dry weight, seedling length and seedling vigor indexe0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in Lentil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–91 · show in text ↑
e0

“biodiversity-induced differences were observed in germination percentage, seedling fresh weight, seedling dry weight, seedling length and seedling vigor index”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1063–1221 · show in text ↑
e1

“The 2 original bacterial strains (KF3B and KF63C)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 643–692 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Priming duration significantly affected investigated lentil traits other than germination percentage.

Taxon
LentilLens culinarist0
Treatment
priming timee0
Outcome
all investigated parameters except for germination percentagee0
Comparator
controle1

Not reportedDirection

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in Lentil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–91 · show in text ↑
e0

“priming time significantly affected all investigated parameters except for germination percentage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1228–1325 · show in text ↑
e1

“5 different priming times (control, 1, 2, 4 and 6 h)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 697–749 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Priming time did not significantly affect lentil germination percentage.

Taxon
LentilLens culinarist0
Treatment
priming timee0
Outcome
germination percentagee0
Comparator
controle1

Not reportedDirection

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in Lentil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–91 · show in text ↑
e0

“priming time significantly affected all investigated parameters except for germination percentage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1228–1325 · show in text ↑
e1

“5 different priming times (control, 1, 2, 4 and 6 h)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 697–749 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial strain and priming time interaction produced no significant differences in lentil traits.

Taxon
LentilLens culinarist0
Treatment
interaction of strains and priming timese0
Interactor
bacterial strainse1symbiont
Outcome
traitse0
Direction
did not lead to any significant differencese0

Not reportedComparator

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in Lentil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–91 · show in text ↑
e0

“the interaction of strains and priming times did not lead to any significant differences in traits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1336–1434 · show in text ↑
e1

“The 2 original bacterial strains (KF3B and KF63C)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 643–692 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors identified 4 hours as the optimum lentil priming time.

Taxon
lentilsLens culinarise0
Outcome
Optimum priming timee0
Value
4 hourse0

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Optimum priming time for lentils was determined as 4 hours.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1549–1608 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Strain KF63C stimulated lentil seedling growth.

Taxon
LentilLens culinarist0
Treatment
strain of KF63Ce0
Interactor
KF63Ce0symbiont
Outcome
seedling growthe0
Direction
stimulativee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in Lentil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–91 · show in text ↑
e0

“the strain of KF63C had a noteworthy stimulative effect on especially seedling growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1618–1703 · show in text ↑
e1

“The 2 original bacterial strains (KF3B and KF63C)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 643–692 · show in text ↑

seed treatment · growth · Lens culinaris (lentil)Positive and negative results

27 papers: 24 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

23 papers more in this group

See all 27 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.