Abstract
Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) have evolved to thrive in challenging environments and provide the plants with defense against the harmful impacts of the environmental stressors. The present study aimed to isolate, screen, and identify PGPB obtained from the rhizosphere soil of some field crops at different sites in Ismailia, Egypt. Isolation process was carried out from drought-suffered locations to obtain efficient promising strains adapted to carry out vital processes under an irrigation water shortage. Eight bacterial isolates were selected and identified by phenotypic properties, and were subjected to screening procedures to assess their growth capabilities and evaluate their potential as PGPB. The screening process involved investigating various PGPB features, such as phosphate solubilization, formation of indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) production. Among the eight isolates, two isolates only (MW3 and AB3) gave positive results for all the tested plant growth promoting traits. The promising isolates were identified by sequencing of their16S rRNA as Arthrobacter globiformis (MW3) and Micrococcus luteus (AB3). A field trial was conducted to evaluate the activity of the two PGPB and their mixture to act as biofertilizers for maize under deficit irrigation 0.75 from crop evapotranspiration (ETc). All tested inoculants significantly increased yield components of maize, NPK uptake by plants, availability of N and P in soil, activity of some soil enzymes, and total bacterial counts compared to the un-inoculated control. Utilization of stress adapting PGPR showed great potential in overcoming the challenges of sustainable agriculture under environmental stress conditions.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Two isolates MW3 and AB3 were positive for all tested growth promoting traits.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“two isolates only (MW3 and AB3) gave positive results for all the tested plant growth promoting traits”
Claim · model-written summary
MW3 was identified as Arthrobacter globiformis.
- Outcome
- Arthrobacter globiformis (MW3)e0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The promising isolates were identified by sequencing of their16S rRNA as Arthrobacter globiformis (MW3) and Micrococcus luteus (AB3)”
Claim · model-written summary
AB3 was identified as Micrococcus luteus.
- Outcome
- Micrococcus luteus (AB3)e0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The promising isolates were identified by sequencing of their16S rRNA as Arthrobacter globiformis (MW3) and Micrococcus luteus (AB3)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculants significantly increased maize yield components.
- Treatment
- All tested inoculantse0
- Outcome
- yield components of maizee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- un-inoculated controle0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All tested inoculants significantly increased yield components of maize, NPK uptake by plants, availability of N and P in soil, activity of some soil enzymes, and total bacterial counts compared to the un-inoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculants significantly increased plant NPK uptake.
- Treatment
- All tested inoculantse0
- Outcome
- NPK uptake by plantse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- un-inoculated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All tested inoculants significantly increased yield components of maize, NPK uptake by plants, availability of N and P in soil, activity of some soil enzymes, and total bacterial counts compared to the un-inoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculants significantly increased soil N and P availability.
- Treatment
- All tested inoculantse0
- Outcome
- availability of N and P in soile0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- un-inoculated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All tested inoculants significantly increased yield components of maize, NPK uptake by plants, availability of N and P in soil, activity of some soil enzymes, and total bacterial counts compared to the un-inoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculants significantly increased soil enzyme activity.
- Treatment
- All tested inoculantse0
- Outcome
- activity of some soil enzymese0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- un-inoculated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All tested inoculants significantly increased yield components of maize, NPK uptake by plants, availability of N and P in soil, activity of some soil enzymes, and total bacterial counts compared to the un-inoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculants significantly increased total bacterial counts.
- Treatment
- All tested inoculantse0
- Outcome
- total bacterial countse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- un-inoculated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All tested inoculants significantly increased yield components of maize, NPK uptake by plants, availability of N and P in soil, activity of some soil enzymes, and total bacterial counts compared to the un-inoculated control”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
61 papers more in this group
See all 65 papers →inoculation · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
287 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
302 papers more in this group
See all 306 papers →inoculation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
478 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
534 papers more in this group
See all 538 papers →inoculation · physiology: enzyme activity · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
19 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 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.