4.2 Article

Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis promote tomato growth

期刊

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 397-406

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s42770-022-00874-3

关键词

Plant growth promotion rhizobacteria; PGPR; Bacillus; Solanum lycopersicum

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrated that Bacillus licheniformis FMCH001 and Bacillus subtilis FMCH002 can promote tomato growth and persist in the rhizosphere.
Bacillus spp. are widely marketed and used in agricultural systems as antagonists to various phytopathogens, but it can also benefit the plant as plant growth promoters. Therefore, the longer presence of the bacterium in the rhizosphere would result in a prolonged growth-promoting benefit, but little is yet known about its persistence in the rhizosphere after seed coating. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the tomato growth promotion mediated by Bacillus licheniformis FMCH001 and Bacillus subtilis FMCH002 and the survival rate of these bacteria both in shoots and in the rhizosphere. The Bacillus strains used throughout this study were obtained from Quartzo (R) produced by Chr. Hansen. The application of a mixture of B. subtilis and B. licheniformis (Quartzo (R)) at concentrations 1 x 10(8), 1 x 10(9), and 1 x 10(10) CFU mL(-1), as well as the application of B. subtilis and B. licheniformis individually at concentration 1 x 10(8) CFU mL(-1), increased fresh and dry masses of shoot and root system, volume of root system, and length of roots of tomato plants when compared to control. Both Bacillus strains produced IAA after 48 h of in vitro. Bacillus colonies obtained from plant sap were morphologically similar to colonies of B. subtilis and B. licheniformis strains and were detected in inoculated on plants and not detected in control ones. A similar pattern was obtained through DNA-based detection (qPCR). Therefore, B. subtilis and B. licheniformis were able to produce auxin, promote tomato growth, and colonize and persist in the rhizosphere.

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

4.2
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