4.7 Article

Bacterial endophytes in processing carrots (Daucus carota L. var. sativus):: their localization, population density, biodiversity and their effects on plant growth

Journal

PLANT AND SOIL
Volume 253, Issue 2, Pages 381-390

Publisher

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1024835208421

Keywords

allelopathy; bioassay; Daucus carota; endophyte; plant growth promoting

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A survey of endophytic bacteria colonizing roots of processing carrots (Daucus carota) was performed with two high-yielding cultivars (Carochoice, Red Core Chantenay) grown at two locations (Canning, Great Village) in Nova Scotia. Most bacterial endophyte colony-forming units (CFU) were recovered from the carrot crown tissues (96%) compared to the periderm and metaxylem tissues of carrot storage tissues irrespective of the cultivars and field locations. Greater population densities of endophytic bacteria were recovered from the crowns of Red Core Chantenay (5.75 x 10(5) CFU/g FW in Great Village; 3.0 x 10(5) CFU/g FW in Canning) cultivar, which accounted for 78% of all of CFU recovered compared to cv. Carochoice. Independent of the cultivars, more endophytes were recovered from the carrots produced in Great Village compared to the ones grown in Canning (62 vs. 38%, respectively). Of 360 isolates examined, 28 bacterial genera were identified, of which, Pseudomonas, Staphylococcus, and Agrobacterium were the most common (31, 7 and 7%, respectively). Diversity indices showed no significant differences between the two locations. A bioassay using selected strains of bacteria was performed on 4 week-old carrot (cv. Bergen) and potato (Solanum tuberosum cv. Atlantic) plantlets. In carrots, 83% of the bacterial strains tested were found to be plant growth promoting, 10% remained plant growth neutral and 7% inhibited plant growth. In contrast, in the potato bioassay 38% remained growth neutral, 33% promoted and 29% inhibited plant growth.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available