4.7 Article

Assessment of the potential role of Streptomyces strains in the revegetation of semiarid sites: the relative incidence of strain origin and plantation site on plant performance and soil quality indicators

期刊

BIOLOGY AND FERTILITY OF SOILS
卷 52, 期 1, 页码 53-64

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00374-015-1052-x

关键词

Actinobacteria; Allochthonous strain; Enzymatic activities; Mediterranean native shrub; Native strain; Revegetation

资金

  1. Plan Nacional Spain [AGL2012-39057-CO2-01]
  2. Formacion de Personal Investigador programme (Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Spain)
  3. National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research of Chile (CONICYT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We performed a field assay to assess the efficacy of strains of actinobacteria belonging to the Streptomyces genus, isolated from two Mediterranean semiarid sites (Rellano and Calblanque) with different soil characteristics, with regard to the establishment of Rhamnus lycioides L. seedlings in both locations, as well as their effect on soil chemical and microbiological properties 1 year after planting. At the Calblanque site, the inoculation with native strains was more effective than that with allochthonous strains, with respect to increasing shoot dry weight (about 48 and 28 %, respectively, compared to control plants), primarily due to improvements in NPK uptake and plant drought tolerance. However, at Rellano, the efficacy of plant growth promotion was not influenced by the strain origin. The highest increases in the urease, protease, and dehydrogenase activities and in microbial biomass C in response to inoculation with actinobacteria occurred at the Rellano site (about 200, 28, 29, and 30 %, respectively, compared to the respective controls), regardless of the origin of the strain assayed. Strain origin and the biological fertility of the plantation site should be considered in the selection of strains of actinobacteria for use in the revegetation with shrub species in semiarid environments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据