Acta Physiologiae Plantarum

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 203–209 | Cite as

Plant growth promoting bacteria enhance water stress resistance in green gram plants

  • D. SaravanakumarEmail author
  • M. Kavino
  • T. Raguchander
  • P. Subbian
  • R. Samiyappan
Original Paper


Plant growth promoting bacterial (PGPB) strains Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf1 and endophytic Bacillus subtilis EPB5, EPB22, EPB 31 were tested for their capacity to induce water stress related proteins and enzymes in green gram (Vigna radiata) plants. Among the different bacteria used, P. fluorescens Pf1 increased the vigour index, fresh weight and dry weight of green gram seedlings in vitro. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of stress-related enzymes indicated the greater activity of catalase and peroxidase in green gram plants bacterized with P. fluorescens Pf1 against water stress when compared to untreated plants. The greater accumulation of proline was recorded in Pf1 treated plants compared to untreated plants. The pot culture study revealed the greater resistance to water stress by green gram plants treated with P. fluorescens Pf1 compared to untreated plants. The greater activity of stress-related enzymes in green gram plants mediated by PGPB could pave the way for developing drought management strategies.


Bacillus subtilis Endophytes Plant growth promoting bacteria Pseudomonas fluorescens Water stress 


  1. Baki AAA, Anderson JD (1973) Vigour determination in soybean seed by multiple criteria. Crop Sci 13:630–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barber JM (1980) Catalase and peroxidase in primary leaves during development and senescence. Z Pflanzenphysiol 97:135–144Google Scholar
  3. Bates L, Waldren RP, Teare ID (1973) Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil 39:205–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowler C, van Montagu M, Inze D (1992) Superoxide dismutase and stress tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 43:83–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for quantification of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein–dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gaff DF (1997) Mechanisms of desiccation tolerance in resurrection vascular plants. In: Basra AS, Bastra RK (eds) Mechanisms of environmental stress resistance in plants. Harwood Academic Publishers, London, pp 43–58Google Scholar
  7. Glick BR, Karaturovic DM, Newell PC (1995) A novel procedure for rapid isolation of plant growth-promoting pseudomonads. Can J Microbiol 41:533–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedure for agricultural research. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Hammerschmidt R, Nuckles EM, Kuc J (1982) Association of enhanced peroxidase activity with induced systemic resistance of cucumber to Colletotrichum lagenarium. Physiol Plant Pathol 20:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanson AD, Nelsen CE, Pedersen AR, Everson EH (1979) Capacity for proline accumulation during water stress in barley and its implications for breeding for drought resistance. Crop Sci 19:489–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Indian Meteorological Department (2009) Present status of drought. Drought Bull 1:3–26Google Scholar
  12. ISTA (1993) Proceedings of the International Seed Testing Association, international rules for seed testing. Seed Sci Technol 21:25–30Google Scholar
  13. Kohler J, Hernàndez JA, Caravaca F, Roldàn A (2008) Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi modify alleviation biochemical mechanisms in water-stressed plants. Fun Plant Biol 35:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mayak S, Tirosh T, Glick BR (2004) Plant growth promoting bacteria that confer resistance to water stress in tomato and pepper. Plant Sci 166:525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nandakumar R, Babu S, Viswanathan R, Raguchander T, Samiyappan R (2001) Induction of systemic resistance in rice against sheath blight disease by Pseudomonas fluorescens. Soil Biol Biochem 33:603–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Quartacci MF, Pinzino C, Sgherri CLM, Dalla Vecchia F, Navari-Izzo F (2000) Growth in excess copper induces changes in the lipid composition and fluidity of PSII-enriched membranes in wheat. Physiol Plant 108:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ramamoorthy V, Viswanathan R, Raguchander T, Prakasam V, Samiyappan R (2001) Induction of systemic resistance by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in crop plants against pest and diseases. Crop Protect 20:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Saravanakumar D, Samiyappan R (2007) ACC deaminase from Pseudomonas fluorescens mediated saline resistance in groundnut (Arachis hypogea) plants. J Appl Microbiol 102:1283–1292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Saravanakumar D, Muthumeena B, Lavanya N, Suresh S, Rajendran L, Raguchander T, Samiyappan R (2007a) Pseudomonas induced defense molecules in rice against leaffolder (Cnephalocrocis medinalis) pest. Pest Manag Sci 63:714–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Saravanakumar D, Vijayakumar C, Kumar N, Samiyappan R (2007b) PGPR induced defense responses in tea plants against blister blight disease. Crop Protect 26:556–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Saravanakumar D, Lavanya N, Muthumeena K, Raguchander T, Samiyappan R (2009) Fluorescent pseudomonad mixtures mediate disease resistance in rice plants against sheath rot (Sarocladium oryzae) disease. Biocontrol 54:273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scandalios JG (1994) Regulation and properties of plant catalases. In: Foyer CH, Mullineaux PM (eds) Causes of photo-oxidative stress and amelioration of defense systems in plants. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 275–316Google Scholar
  23. Schellenbaum L, Mùller J, Boller T, Wienken A, Schùepp H (1998) Effects of drought on non-mycorrhizal and mycorrhizal maize: changes in the pools of non-structural carbohydrates, in the activities of invertase and trehalose, and in the pools of amino acids and imino acids. New Phytol 138:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sgherri CLM, Maffei M, Navari-Izzo F (2000) Antioxidative enzymes in wheat subjected to increasing water deficit and rewatering. J Plant Physiol 157:273–279Google Scholar
  25. Sindhu JS, Ravi S, Minocha JL (1984) Peroxidases isozyme patterns in primary trisomics of pearl millet. Theor Appl Genet 68:179–182Google Scholar
  26. Staskawicz BJ, Ausubel FM, Baker BJ, Ellis JG, Jones JD (1995) Molecular genetics of plant disease resistance. Science 268:661–667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Thompson DC (1996) Evaluation of bacterial antagonist for reduction of summer patch symptoms in Kentucky blue grass. Plant Dis 80:856–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vivekananthan R, Ravi M, Ramanathan A, Samiyappan R (2004) Lytic enzymes induced by Pseudomonas fluorescens and other biocontrol organisms mediate defence against the anthracnose pathogen in mango. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 20:235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang C, Knill E, Glick BR, De’fago G (2000) Effect of transferring 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) deaminase genes into Pseudomonas fluorescens strain CHA0 and its gacA derivative CHA96 on their growth-promoting and disease-suppressive capacities. Can J Microbiol 46:898–907CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Woodbury W, Spencer AK, Stahmann MA (1971) An improved procedure using ferricyanide for detecting catalase isozyme. Anal Biochem 44:301–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Yang J, Kloepper JA, Ryu C (2009) Rhizosphere bacteria help plants tolerate abiotic stress. Trends Plant Sci 14:1–4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant Physiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Saravanakumar
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Kavino
    • 2
  • T. Raguchander
    • 1
  • P. Subbian
    • 3
  • R. Samiyappan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant PathologyTamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatoreIndia
  2. 2.Horticultural College and Research InstituteTamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatoreIndia
  3. 3.Department of AgronomyTamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatoreIndia

Personalised recommendations