Paper · 2024 · Frontiers in Plant Science

Agronomic advantage of bacterial biological nitrogen fixation on wheat plant growth under contrasting nitrogen and phosphorus regimes

Abderrahim Aasfar; Issam Meftah Kadmiri; Salah Eddine Azaroual; et al.

5
claims
6
verbatim quotes
30
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Introduction Given their remarkable capacity to convert atmospheric nitrogen into plant-accessible ammonia, nitrogen-fixing microbial species hold promise as a sustainable alternative to chemical nitrogen fertilizers, particularly in economically significant crops like wheat. This study aimed to identify strains with optimal attributes for promoting wheat growth sustainably, with a primary emphasis on reducing reliance on chemical nitrogen fertilizers. Methods We isolated free nitrogen-fixing strains from diverse rhizospheric soils across Morocco. Subsequently, we conducted a rigorous screening process to evaluate their plant growth-promoting traits, including nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, phytohormone production and their ability to enhance wheat plant growth under controlled conditions. Two specific strains, Rhodotorula mucilaginosa NF 516 and Arthrobacter sp. NF 528, were selected for in-depth evaluation, with the focus on their ability to reduce the need for chemical nitrogen supply, particularly when used in conjunction with TSP fertilizer and natural rock phosphate. These two sources of phosphate were chosen to assess their agricultural effectiveness on wheat plants. Results and discussion Twenty-two nitrogen-fixing strains ( nif-H +) were isolated from various Moroccan rhizospheric soils, representing Bacillus sp., Pseudomonas sp., Arthrobacter sp., Burkholderia sp. and a yeast-like microorganism. These strains were carefully selected based on their potential to promote plant growth. The findings revealed that the application of Rhodotorula mucilaginosa NF 516 and Arthrobacter sp. NF 528 individually or in combination, significantly improved wheat plant growth and enhanced nutrients (N and P) uptake under reduced nitrogen regimes. Notably, their effectiveness was evident in response to both natural rock phosphate and TSP, demonstrating their important role in wheat production under conditions of low nitrogen and complex phosphorus inputs. This research underscores the significant role of nitrogen-fixing microorganisms, particularly Rhodotorula mucilaginosa NF 516 and Arthrobacter sp. NF 528, in wheat production under conditions of low nitrogen and complex phosphorus inputs. It showcases their potential to reduce chemical nitrogen fertilization requirements by up to 50% without compromising wheat plant yields. Our study emphasizes the importance of bacterial biological nitrogen fixation in meeting the remaining nitrogen requirements beyond this reduction. This underscores the vital role of microbial contributions in providing essential nitrogen for optimal plant growth and highlights the significance of biological nitrogen fixation in sustainable agriculture practices.

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 5

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Twenty-two nitrogen-fixing strains were isolated from Moroccan rhizospheric soils.

Outcome
Twenty-two nitrogen-fixing strainse0
Setting
Moroccan rhizospheric soilse0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“Twenty-two nitrogen-fixing strains ( nif-H +) were isolated from various Moroccan rhizospheric soils”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1230–1330 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Applying Rhodotorula mucilaginosa NF 516 and Arthrobacter sp. NF 528, alone or combined, significantly improved wheat plant growth under reduced nitrogen regimes.

Treatment
application of Rhodotorula mucilaginosa NF 516 and Arthrobacter sp. NF 528e0
Interactor
Rhodotorula mucilaginosa NF 516Rhodotorula mucilaginosae0symbiont
Second interactor
Arthrobacter sp. NF 528e0symbiont
Outcome
plant growthe0
Direction
improvede0
Qualifier
under reduced nitrogen regimese0

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 ↗
Rhodotorula mucilaginosa
Rhodotorula mucilaginosa · InteractorA doubt · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“application of Rhodotorula mucilaginosa NF 516 and Arthrobacter sp. NF 528 individually or in combination, significantly improved wheat plant growth and enhanced nutrients (N and P) uptake under reduced nitrogen regimes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1562–1781 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Applying Rhodotorula mucilaginosa NF 516 and Arthrobacter sp. NF 528, alone or combined, enhanced N and P uptake by wheat under reduced nitrogen regimes.

Treatment
application of Rhodotorula mucilaginosa NF 516 and Arthrobacter sp. NF 528e0
Interactor
Rhodotorula mucilaginosa NF 516Rhodotorula mucilaginosae0symbiont
Second interactor
Arthrobacter sp. NF 528e0symbiont
Outcome
nutrients (N and P) uptakee0
Direction
enhancede0
Qualifier
under reduced nitrogen regimese0

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 ↗
Rhodotorula mucilaginosa
Rhodotorula mucilaginosa · InteractorA doubt · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“application of Rhodotorula mucilaginosa NF 516 and Arthrobacter sp. NF 528 individually or in combination, significantly improved wheat plant growth and enhanced nutrients (N and P) uptake under reduced nitrogen regimes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1562–1781 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The effectiveness of the two strains on wheat was evident with both natural rock phosphate and TSP.

Treatment
natural rock phosphate and TSPe1
Outcome
effectivenesse1
Direction
evidente1

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

“their important role in wheat production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1890–1930 · show in text ↑
e1

“Notably, their effectiveness was evident in response to both natural rock phosphate and TSP”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1783–1874 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors state the strains could reduce chemical nitrogen fertilization requirements of wheat by up to 50% without compromising yields.

Outcome
reduce chemical nitrogen fertilization requirementse0
Value
up to 50%e0

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

“It showcases their potential to reduce chemical nitrogen fertilization requirements by up to 50% without compromising wheat plant yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2235–2371 · show in text ↑

Rhodotorula mucilaginosa · 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 →

Arthrobacter · 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 →

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.