4.7 Article

The Effects of Seed Pretreatment with Endophytic Bacteria Bacillus subtilis on the Water Balance of Spring and Winter Wheat Seedlings under Short-Time Water Deficit

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 12, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants12142684

关键词

winter and spring Triticum aestivum L.; drought stress; endophytic PGP bacteria; seed biopriming; osmotic potential; proline; relative water content; transpiration; water balance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that pre-sowing seed treatment with endophytic Bacillus subtilis can improve the growth and tolerance of wheat under drought stress, mitigating the adverse effects of water deficit.
We investigated the effect of pre-sowing seed treatment with endophytic Bacillus subtilis 10-4 (B. subtilis) on spring and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.; cultivars Ekada-70 (Ek) and Scepter (Sc), respectively) growth and tolerance under 1-24 h of drought stress, modulated by 12% polyethylene glycol 6000 (PEG). The results showed that drought decreased transpiration intensity (TI), root relative water content (RWC), osmotic potential (?(p)) of cell sap, and induced proline accumulation and electrolyte leakage (EL) in both wheat cultivars. It was revealed that Sc was more responsive to PEG and B. subtilis treatments than Ek. Under drought, Ek did not significantly change root length, shoot height, or dry biomass. The pretreatment of wheat plants with B. subtilis performed significantly better under drought conditions through the enhanced TI, RWC, and ?(p) of the cell sap in comparison with the plants treated with 12% PEG alone. B. subtilis also reduced stress-caused EL, especially in the Sc cultivar. Under water deficit wheat seedlings, pretreated with B. subtilis, have a higher proline accumulation in comparison to untreated stressed plants. Taken together, our results demonstrate the crucial role of endophytic B. subtilis in ameliorating the adverse effects of water stress on the water balance of both winter and spring wheat cultivars.

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