Plant and Soil

, Volume 109, Issue 2, pp 263–269 | Cite as

Differential reactions of wheat and pea genotypes to root inoculation with growth-affecting rhizosphere bacteria

  • Boel Åström
  • Berndt Gerhardson


Spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and pea (Pisum spp.) genotypes were tested for reaction to root inoculation with rhizosphere bacteria affecting plant growth. Plant response was studied in greenhouse experiments after treatment of seedlings with bacteria suspended in nutrient broth. Significant genotype variation was found in both wheat and pea in terms of shoot dry weight and severity of bacteria-induced leaf symptoms. For most bacterial isolates tested, there was good correlation between ratings of leaf symptoms 7 to 14 days after inoculation and growth inhibition measured after four weeks. Interactions between isolates and plant genotypes were significant in both wheat and pea (P=0.0024 and 0.0001, respectively), but genotypes with sensitivity or tolerance to most isolates could be distinguished. In an outdoor pot experiment, two of the bacterial isolates caused delayed plant development and differential decreases in grain yield of wheat genotypes. The hypothesis that the reaction of wheat genotypes to the tested becteria was related to their influence on bacterial establishment in the rhizosphere could not be substantiated.

Key words

peas plant genetics plant growth Pseudomonas rhizosphere bacteria Serratia symptoms wheat 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alström S 1987 Factors associated with detrimental effects of rhizobacteria on plant growth. Plant and Soil 102, 3–9.Google Scholar
  2. Avivi Y and Feldman M 1982 The response of wheat to bacteria of the genus Azospirillum. Isr. J. Bot. 31, 237–245.Google Scholar
  3. Azad H R, Davis J R, Schnathorst W C and Kado C I 1985 Relationships between rhizoplane and rhizosphere bacteria and Verticillium wilt resistance in potato. Arch. Microbiol. 140, 347–351.Google Scholar
  4. Bergan T 1981 Human-and animal-pathogenic members of the genus Pseudomonas.In The Prokaryotes. Eds. M P Starr, H Stolp, H G Trüper, A Balows and H G Schlegel. Vol 1, pp 666–700. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  5. Burr T J and Caesar A 1984 Beneficial plant bacteria. Critical Rev. Plant Sci. 2, 1–20.Google Scholar
  6. Buxton E W 1957 Differential rhizosphere effects of three pea cultivars on physiological races ofFusarium oxysporum f.pisi. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 40, 305–317.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell J N, Conn K, Sorlie L and Cook F D 1986 Inhibition of growth in canola seedlings caused by an opportunisticPseudomonas sp. under laboratory and field conditions. Can. J. Microbiol. 32, 201–207.Google Scholar
  8. Döbereiner J and Campelo A B 1971 Non-symbiotic nitrogen fixing bacteria in tropical soils. Plant and Soil, Special Volume, 457–470.Google Scholar
  9. Elliott L F and Lynch J M 1984 Pseudomonads as a factor in the growth of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Soil Biol. Biochem. 16, 69–71.Google Scholar
  10. Elkan G H 1962 Comparison of rhizosphere microorganisms of genetically related nodulating and non-nodulating soybean lines. Can. J. Microbiol. 8, 79–87.Google Scholar
  11. Fredrickson J K and Elliott L F 1985 Colonization of winter wheat roots by inhibitory rhizobacteria. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49, 1172–1177.Google Scholar
  12. Gardner J M, Chandler J L and Feldman A W 1984 Gowth promotion and inhibition by antibiotic-producing fluorescent pseudomonads on citrus roots. Plant and Soil 77, 103–113.Google Scholar
  13. Gerhardson B, Alström S and Rämert B 1985 Plant reactions to inoculation of roots with fungi and bacteria. Phytopathol. Z. 114, 108–117.Google Scholar
  14. Hornby D and Ullstrup A J 1967 Fungal populations associated with maize roots. Composition and comparison of mycofloras from genotypes differing in root rot resistance. Phytopathology 57, 869–875.Google Scholar
  15. Kloepper J W, Schroth M N and Miller T D 1980. Effects of rhizosphere colonization by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on potato plant development and yield. Phytopathology 70, 1078–1082.Google Scholar
  16. Millet E, Avivi Y and Feldman M 1984 Yield response of various wheat genotypes to inoculation withAzospirillum brasilense. Plant and Soil 80, 261–266.Google Scholar
  17. Millet E, Avivi Y and Feldman M 1985 Effects of rhizospheric bacteria on wheat yield under field conditions. Plant and Soil 86, 347–355.Google Scholar
  18. Neal J L Jr., Atkinson T G and Larson R I 1970 Changes in the rhizosphere microflora of spring wheat induced by disomic substitution of a chromosome. Can. J. Microbiol. 16, 153–158.Google Scholar
  19. Neal J L Jr., Larson R I and Atkinson T G 1973 Changes in rhizosphere populations of selected physiological groups of bacteria related to substitution of specific pairs of chromosomes in spring wheat. Plant and Soil 39, 209–212.Google Scholar
  20. Peterson E A and Rouatt J W 1967 Soil microorganisms associated with flax roots. Can. J. Microbiol. 13, 199–203.Google Scholar
  21. Rai R, Prasad V and Shukla I C 1984 Interaction between finger millet (Eleusine coracana) genotypes and drug-resistant mutants ofAzospirillum brasilense in calcareous soil. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 102, 521–529.Google Scholar
  22. Rennie R J and Larson R I 1979 Dinitrogen fixation associated with disomic chromosome substitution lines of spring wheat. Can. J. Bot. 57, 2771–2775.Google Scholar
  23. Schroth M N and Hancock J G 1981 Selected topics in biological control. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 35, 453–476.Google Scholar
  24. Suslow T V and Schroth M N 1982 Role of delecterious rhizobacteria as minor pathogens in reducing crop growth. Phytopathology 72, 111–115.Google Scholar
  25. Timonin M I 1940 The interaction of higher plants and soil micro-organisms. II. Study of the microbial population of the rhizosphere in relation to resistance of plants to soil-borne diseases. Can. J. Res. Sect. C 18, 307–317.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boel Åström
    • 1
  • Berndt Gerhardson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant and Forest ProtectionSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations