4.6 Article

Interaction among free-living N-fixing bacteria isolated from Drosera villosa var. villosa and AM fungi (Glomus clarum) in rice (Oryza sativa)

期刊

APPLIED SOIL ECOLOGY
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 25-34

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2006.05.013

关键词

arbuscular mycorrhiza; rice; Glomus; nitrogen fixation; growth promotion; rhizosphere

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rice is usually grown in N-deficient soils, demanding that the element be supplied to the field by commercially available N fertilizers. Unfortunately, a substantial amount of the urea-N or NO3-N applied as fertilizers is lost through different mechanisms, causing environmental pollution problems. Utilization of biological N-2 fixation (BNF) technology can decrease the application of N fertilizers, reducing environmental risks. This study evaluated the effects of four free-living N-fixing bacterial species, isolated from oligotrophic soil conditions, as single inoculants or combined with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Glomus clarum), on the development of rice plants grown as flooded or upland rice, in the greenhouse. Upland rice roots were inoculated with Methylobacterium sp., Burkholderia sp. and Sphingomonas sp., whereas the species Burkholderia sp., Pseudomonas sp. and Sphingomonas sp., were inoculated on flooded rice. Inoculants consisted of individual bacterial species or their mixtures, with or without G. clarum. Controls included non-bacteria/non-AM fungi, and AM fungi alone. Experiments were carried out in five replicates. The presence of G. clarum decreased or did not significantly affect plant growth under the different culture conditions. The presence of AM fungi stimulated the N-fixing bacterial population of upland rice. Bacterial species had different effects, under both culture conditions, and some genera of N-fixing bacteria increased root and shoot growth at different plant growth stages. The level of mycorrhiza colonization had no influence on plant growth. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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