Paper · 2024 · Plants

Potential of Drought Tolerant Rhizobacteria Amended with Biochar on Growth Promotion in Wheat

Sidra Noureen; Atia Iqbal; Hafiz Abdul Muqeet

12
claims
24
verbatim quotes
13
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Drought stress is the prime obstacle for worldwide agricultural production and necessitates innovative strategies for enhancing crop resilience. This study explores the efficacy of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and biochar (BC) as sustainable amendments for mitigating the effects of drought on wheat growth. Multiple experiments were carried out on isolated strains to assess their drought tolerance potential and multiple plant growth-promoting attributes. Experiments in the laboratory and natural environment were conducted to assess the impact of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, biochar, and their synergistic application on various growth parameters of wheat. The results revealed that the drought-tolerant PGPR strains (Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus tequilensis), alongside biochar (rice husk), alleviated the phytotoxic impact of drought by increasing the root length from 17.0% to 70.0% and shoot length from 30.0% to 82.0% as compared to un-inoculated stressed controls. The total chlorophyll and carotenoid contents of the plants were substantially increased to 477% and 423%, respectively, when biochar and PGPR were applied synergistically. Significant enhancements in membrane stability index, relative water content, proline, and sugar level were achieved by combining biochar and bacterial strains, resulting in increases of 19.5%, 37.9%, 219%, and 300%, respectively. The yield of wheat in terms of plant height, spike length, number of spikelets per spike, and number of grains per spike was enhanced from 26.7% to 44.6%, 23.5% to 62.7%, 91.5% to 154%, and 137% to 182%, respectively. It was concluded that the biochar-based application of PGPR induced drought tolerance in wheat under water deficit conditions, ultimately improving the production and yield of wheat.

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 12

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PGPR strains with rice-husk biochar increased wheat root length by 17.0% to 70.0% versus uninoculated stressed controls.

Treatment
PGPR strains (Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus tequilensis), alongside biochar (rice husk)e0
Interactor
Bacillus subtilisBacillus subtilise0symbiont
Second interactor
Bacillus tequilensisBacillus tequilensise0symbiont
Outcome
root lengthe0
Direction
increasinge0
Value
17.0% to 70.0%e0
Comparator
un-inoculated stressed controlse0

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 ↗
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis · InteractorY tambe (original uploader) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The results revealed that the drought-tolerant PGPR strains (Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus tequilensis), alongside biochar (rice husk), alleviated the phytotoxic impact of drought by increasing the root length from 17.0% to 70.0% and shoot length from 30.0% to 82.0% as compared to un-inoculated stressed controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 686–1000 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 88–93 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PGPR strains with rice-husk biochar increased wheat shoot length by 30.0% to 82.0% versus uninoculated stressed controls.

Treatment
PGPR strains (Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus tequilensis), alongside biochar (rice husk)e0
Interactor
Bacillus subtilisBacillus subtilise0symbiont
Second interactor
Bacillus tequilensisBacillus tequilensise0symbiont
Outcome
shoot lengthe0
Direction
increasinge0
Value
30.0% to 82.0%e0
Comparator
un-inoculated stressed controlse0

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 ↗
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis · InteractorY tambe (original uploader) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The results revealed that the drought-tolerant PGPR strains (Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus tequilensis), alongside biochar (rice husk), alleviated the phytotoxic impact of drought by increasing the root length from 17.0% to 70.0% and shoot length from 30.0% to 82.0% as compared to un-inoculated stressed controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 686–1000 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 88–93 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined biochar and PGPR increased total chlorophyll content to 477%.

Treatment
biochar and PGPRe0
Outcome
total chlorophylle0
Direction
increasede0
Value
477%e0

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

“The total chlorophyll and carotenoid contents of the plants were substantially increased to 477% and 423%, respectively, when biochar and PGPR were applied synergistically”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1002–1173 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 88–93 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined biochar and PGPR increased carotenoid content to 423%.

Treatment
biochar and PGPRe0
Outcome
carotenoid contentse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
423%e0

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

“The total chlorophyll and carotenoid contents of the plants were substantially increased to 477% and 423%, respectively, when biochar and PGPR were applied synergistically”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1002–1173 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 88–93 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined biochar and bacteria increased membrane stability index by 19.5%.

Treatment
combining biochar and bacterial strainse0
Outcome
membrane stability indexe0
Direction
enhancementse0
Value
19.5%e0

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

“Significant enhancements in membrane stability index, relative water content, proline, and sugar level were achieved by combining biochar and bacterial strains, resulting in increases of 19.5%, 37.9%, 219%, and 300%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1175–1404 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 88–93 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined biochar and bacteria increased relative water content by 37.9%.

Treatment
combining biochar and bacterial strainse0
Outcome
relative water contente0
Direction
enhancementse0
Value
37.9%e0

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

“Significant enhancements in membrane stability index, relative water content, proline, and sugar level were achieved by combining biochar and bacterial strains, resulting in increases of 19.5%, 37.9%, 219%, and 300%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1175–1404 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 88–93 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined biochar and bacteria increased proline by 219%.

Treatment
combining biochar and bacterial strainse0
Outcome
prolinee0
Direction
enhancementse0
Value
219%e0

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

“Significant enhancements in membrane stability index, relative water content, proline, and sugar level were achieved by combining biochar and bacterial strains, resulting in increases of 19.5%, 37.9%, 219%, and 300%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1175–1404 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 88–93 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined biochar and bacteria increased sugar level by 300%.

Treatment
combining biochar and bacterial strainse0
Outcome
sugar levele0
Direction
enhancementse0
Value
300%e0

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

“Significant enhancements in membrane stability index, relative water content, proline, and sugar level were achieved by combining biochar and bacterial strains, resulting in increases of 19.5%, 37.9%, 219%, and 300%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1175–1404 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 88–93 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatment increased wheat plant height by 26.7% to 44.6%.

Treatment
biochar-based application of PGPRe1
Outcome
plant heighte0
Direction
enhancede0
Value
26.7% to 44.6%e0

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

“The yield of wheat in terms of plant height, spike length, number of spikelets per spike, and number of grains per spike was enhanced from 26.7% to 44.6%, 23.5% to 62.7%, 91.5% to 154%, and 137% to 182%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1406–1622 · show in text ↑
e1

“the biochar-based application of PGPR induced drought tolerance in wheat under water deficit conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1646–1749 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatment increased wheat spike length by 23.5% to 62.7%.

Treatment
biochar-based application of PGPRe1
Outcome
spike lengthe0
Direction
enhancede0
Value
23.5% to 62.7%e0

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

“The yield of wheat in terms of plant height, spike length, number of spikelets per spike, and number of grains per spike was enhanced from 26.7% to 44.6%, 23.5% to 62.7%, 91.5% to 154%, and 137% to 182%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1406–1622 · show in text ↑
e1

“the biochar-based application of PGPR induced drought tolerance in wheat under water deficit conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1646–1749 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatment increased wheat spikelets per spike by 91.5% to 154%.

Treatment
biochar-based application of PGPRe1
Outcome
number of spikelets per spikee0
Direction
enhancede0
Value
91.5% to 154%e0

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

“The yield of wheat in terms of plant height, spike length, number of spikelets per spike, and number of grains per spike was enhanced from 26.7% to 44.6%, 23.5% to 62.7%, 91.5% to 154%, and 137% to 182%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1406–1622 · show in text ↑
e1

“the biochar-based application of PGPR induced drought tolerance in wheat under water deficit conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1646–1749 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatment increased wheat grains per spike by 137% to 182%.

Treatment
biochar-based application of PGPRe1
Outcome
number of grains per spikee0
Direction
enhancede0
Value
137% to 182%e0

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

“The yield of wheat in terms of plant height, spike length, number of spikelets per spike, and number of grains per spike was enhanced from 26.7% to 44.6%, 23.5% to 62.7%, 91.5% to 154%, and 137% to 182%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1406–1622 · show in text ↑
e1

“the biochar-based application of PGPR induced drought tolerance in wheat under water deficit conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1646–1749 · show in text ↑

Oryza sativa · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

34 papers: 24 positive, 10 negative or no effect

23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

30 papers more in this group

See all 34 papers →

Bacillus tequilensis · growth · 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 →

biochar · physiology: osmolytes · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

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

18 papers: 16 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. no effect

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

biochar · physiology: oxidative · 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 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

biochar · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

17 papers: 16 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 papers →

inoculation · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

35 papers: 32 positive, 3 negative or no effect

31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

31 papers more in this group

See all 35 papers →

8 of 15 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.