Advertisement

Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 1483–1495 | Cite as

Resource partitioning in the rhizosphere by inoculated Bacillus spp. towards growth stimulation of wheat and suppression of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) weed

  • Anupma Dahiya
  • Ruchi Sharma
  • Swati Sindhu
  • Satyavir S. SindhuEmail author
Research Article
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is one of the most important agricultural crop, which provides direct source of food for humans. Besides abiotic stresses, weeds pose a significant challenge to successful crop production. Avena fatua (wild oat) is one of the most common damaging grass weed, which causes 17–62% losses in yield of winter wheat. Excessive use of herbicides to control wild oat has resulted in serious environmental and human health hazards. Therefore, biological control of weeds is required to cope up with the increasing food demand and to attain self-sustainability. In this study, eighty eight rhizobacterial isolates were isolated from rhizosphere soil samples collected from Rewari and Hisar districts. After screening of the isolates, only thirty isolates showed in vitro antagonistic and herbicidal activities. The selected antagonistic isolates were further tested for production of IAA and ALA, and utilization of ACC. Bacterial isolates BWA18 and RWA52 produced 53.80 and 19.18 ug ml−1 IAA, respectively and high ALA production was shown by isolates HCA3 and RCA3. Five isolates i.e., BWA20, BWA23, BWA29, BWA38 and RCA3 showed significant ACC utilization. Inoculation of selected bacterial isolates BWA18, RWA69 and SYB101 showed significant increase in root dry weight (RDW) and shoot dry weight (SDW) of wheat plants under pot house conditions, and decreased RDW and SDW of A. fatua weed as compared to RDF-amended uninoculated soil at 25 DAS (days after sowing). Bacterial isolates RWA69 and SYB101 caused significant increase in RDW and SDW of wheat growth at 50 DAS, whereas their inoculation decreased RDW and SDW of A. fatua. Thus, seed bacterization with bacterial isolates RWA52, RWA69 and SYB101 caused significant increase in RDW and SDW of wheat, whereas their inoculation caused significant decrease in RDW and SDW of A. fatua. The best performing bacterial isolates RWA52 and RWA69 were identified as Bacillus siamensis and Bacillus endophyticus using 16S rRNA analysis. The promising rhizobacterial isolates could further be tested for the bioherbicidal activity and plant growth promotion effects under field conditions before their use as bioherbicides.

Keywords

Wheat Avena fatua Resource partitioning Rhizosphere bacteria Bacillus sp. Bioherbicides 

Notes

References

  1. Ahemad M, Kibret M (2014) Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: current perspective. J King Saud Univ Sci 26:1–20Google Scholar
  2. Amara U, Wang YX, Cui XL, Khalid R, Ali S, Shabbir G, Hayat R (2015) Screening and identification of soil bacteria for growth promotion of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J Biodiv Environ Sci 7(3):87–99Google Scholar
  3. Barazani O, Friedman J (1999) Allelopathic bacteria and their impact on higher plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci 18:741–755Google Scholar
  4. Boyetchko SM (1994) Biological control of grassy weeds with rhizobacteria. In: Proceedings of fifteenth annual meeting of plant pathology society of Alberta. p 15 (Abstract)Google Scholar
  5. Boyetchko SM (1997) Principles of biological weed control with microorganism. Hort Sci 32(2):201–205Google Scholar
  6. Carlos MHJ, Stefani PVY, Janette AM, Melani MSS, Gabriela PO (2016) Assessing the effects of heavy metals in ACC deaminase and IAA production on plant growth-promoting bacteria. Microbiol Res 188:53–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaudhary SR, Sindhu SS (2016) Growth stimulation of clusterbean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) by coinoculation with rhizosphere bacteria and Rhizobium. Legume Res 39(6):1003–1012Google Scholar
  8. Chaudhary D, Sindhu SS (2017) Amelioration of salt stress in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) by coinculation of ACC deaminase-containing rhizospheric bacteria with Mesorhizobium strains. Legume Res 40(1):80–86Google Scholar
  9. Curtis BC (2002) Wheat in the world. In: Curtis BC, Rajaram S, Macpherson HG (eds) Bread wheat improvement and production. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  10. Dworkin M, Foster J (1958) Experiments with some microorganisms which utilize ethane and hydrogen. J Bacteriol 75:592–601PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Glick BR (2003) Phytoremediation: synergistic use of plant and bacteria to clean up the environment. Biotechnol Adv 21:383–393PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Glick BR (2005) Modulation of plant ethylene levels by the bacterial enzyme ACC deaminase. FEMS Microbiol Lett 251:1–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gooding MJ, Davies WP (1997) Wheat production and utilization: systems, quality and the environment. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Holm LG, Plucknett DL, Pancho JV, Herberger JP (1977) The world’s worst weeds. Distribution and biology. University Press of Hawaii, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  15. Kennedy AC, Stubbs T (2007) Management effects on the incidence of jointed goatgrass inhibitory rhizobacteria. Biol Control 40:213–221Google Scholar
  16. Kennedy AC, Elliott LF, Young FL, Douglas CL (1991) Rhizobacteria suppressive to the weed downy brome. Am J Soil Sci Soc 55:722–727Google Scholar
  17. Khandelwal A, Sehrawat A, Sindhu SS (2018) Growth suppression of Chenopodium album weed and growth promotion effect on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) by inoculation of δ-aminolevulinic acid producing rhizobacteria. Intern J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 7(2):1958–1971Google Scholar
  18. Kim SJ, Kremer RJ (2005) Scanning and transmission electron microscopy of root colonization of morning glory (Ipomoea spp.) seedlings by rhizobacteria. Symbiosis 39:117–124Google Scholar
  19. Kremer RJ, Kennedy AC (1996) Rhizobacteria as biocontrol agents of weeds. Weed Technol 10:601–609Google Scholar
  20. Lakshmi V, Kumari S, Singh A, Prabha C (2015) Isolation and characterization of deleterious Pseudomonas aeruginosa KC1 from rhizospheric soils and its interactions with weed seedlings. J King Saud Univ Sci 27:113–119Google Scholar
  21. Li J, Kremer RJ (2006) Growth response of weed and crop seedlings to deleterious rhizobacteria. Biol Control 39:58–65Google Scholar
  22. Magnucka EG, Pietr SJ (2015) Various effects of fluorescent bacteria of the genus Pseudomonas containing ACC deaminase on wheat seedling growth. Microbiol Res 181:112–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Malik DK, Sindhu SS (2011) Production of indole acetic acid by Pseudomonas sp.: effect of coinoculation with Mesorhizobium sp. Cicer on nodulation and plant growth of chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Physiol Mol Biol Plants 17(1):25–32PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Mauzerall D, Granick S (1955) The occurrence and determination of δ-aminolevulinic acid and porphobilinogen in urine. J Biol Chem 219:435–446Google Scholar
  25. Mejri D, Gamalero E, Tombolini R, Musso C, Massa N, Berta G, Souissi T (2010) Biological control of great brome (Bromus diandrus) in durum wheat (Triticum durum): specificity, physiological traits and impact on plant growth and root architecture of the fluorescent pseudomonad strain X33d. Biocontrol 55:561–572Google Scholar
  26. Meliani A, Bensoltane A, Benidire L, Oufdou K (2017) Plant growth-promotion and IAA secretion with Pseudomonas fluorescens and Pseudomonas putida. Res Rev J Bot Sci 6:16–24Google Scholar
  27. Mohan Babu R, Sajeena A, Vidhyasekaran P, Seetharaman K, Reddy MS (2003) Characterization of a phytotoxic glycoprotein produced by Phoma eupyrena—a pathogen on water lettuce. Phytoparasitica 31:265–274Google Scholar
  28. Paau MA (1989) Improvement of Rhizobium inoculants. Appl Environ Microbiol 55:862–865PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Pandey KK, Mayilraj S, Chakrabarti T (2002) Pseudomonas indica sp. nov., a novel butane-utilizing species. Intern J System Evol Microbiol 52(5):1559–1567Google Scholar
  30. Park JM, Radhakrishnan R, Kang SM, Lee IN (2015) IAA producing Enterobacter sp. I-3 as a potent bioherbicide candidate for weed control: a special reference with lettuce growth inhibition. Indian J Microbiol 55(2):207–212PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Penrose DM, Glick BR (2003) Methods for isolating and characterizing ACC deaminase containing plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Physiol Plant 118:10–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Phour M, Sindhu SS (2018) Bioherbicidal potential of rhizosphere bacteria for the management of Phalaris minor weed. Res Crops 19(3):380–386Google Scholar
  33. Phour M, Sindhu SS (2019) Bio-herbicidal effect of 5-aminolevulinic acid producing rhizobacteria in suppression of Lathyrus aphaca weed growth. BioControl 64:221–232.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-019-09925-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Phour M, Ghai A, Rose G, Dhull N, Sindhu SS (2018) Role of aminolevulininic acid in stress adaptation and crop productivity. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 7(5):1516–1524Google Scholar
  35. Pitcher DG, Saunders NA, Owen RJ (1989) Rapid extraction of bacterial genomic DNA with guanidium thiocyanate. Lett Appl Microbiol 8(4):151–156Google Scholar
  36. Sachdev DP, Chaudhari HG, Kastur VM, Dhavale DD, Chopade BA (2009) Isolation and characterization of indole acetic acid (IAA) producing Klebsiella pneumoniae strains from rhizosphere of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and their effect on plant growth. Indian J Expt Biol 47(12):993–1000Google Scholar
  37. Saikia J, Sarma RK, Dhandia R, Yadav A, Bharali R, Gupta VK, Saikia R (2018) Alleviation of drought stress in pulse crops with ACC deaminase producing rhizobacteria isolated from acidic soil of Northeast India. Sci Rep 8(1):35–60Google Scholar
  38. Saraf M, Pandya U, Thakka A (2014) Role of allelochemicals in plant growth promoting rhizobacteria for biocontrol of phytopathogens. Microbiol Res 169(1):18–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sasaki K, Tanaka T, Nishio N, Nagai S (1993) Effect of culture pH on the extracellular production of 5-aminolevulinic acid by Rhodobacter sphaeroides from volatile fatty acid. Biotechnol Lett 15:859–864Google Scholar
  40. Sasikala C, Ramana CV, Rao PR (1994) 5-aminolevulinic acid: a potential herbicide/insecticide from microorganisms. Biotechnol Program 10:451–459Google Scholar
  41. Sharama MP, Vanden BWH (2008) The biology of Canadian weeds: Avena fatua L. Plant Sci 58:141–157Google Scholar
  42. Sheng XF (2005) Growth promotion and increased potassium uptake of cotton and rape by a potassium releasing strain of Bacillus edaphicus. Soil Biol Biochem 37:1918–1922Google Scholar
  43. Sindhu SS, Dadarwal KR (2000) Competition for nodulation among rhizobia in legume- Rhizobium symbiosis. Indian J Microbiol 40:211–246Google Scholar
  44. Sindhu SS, Sehrawat A (2017) Rhizosphere microorganisms: application of plant beneficial microbes in biological control of weeds. In: Panpatte DG, Jhala VK, Vyas RV, Shelat HN (eds) Microorganisms for green revolution; microorganisms for sustainability. Springer Nature, Singapore Pte Ltd, pp 391–430Google Scholar
  45. Sindhu SS, Gupta SK, Dadarwal KR (1999) Antagonistic effect of Pseudomonas spp. on pathogenic fungi and enhancement of growth of green gram (Vigna radiata). Biol Fertil Soils 29:62–68Google Scholar
  46. Sindhu SS, Sehrawat A, Sharma R, Dahiya A (2016) Biopesticides: use of rhizosphere bacteria for biological control of plant pathogens. Def Life Sci J 1:135–148Google Scholar
  47. Sindhu SS, Khandelwal A, Phour M, Sehrawat A (2018) Bioherbicidal potential of rhizosphere microorganisms for ecofriendly weeds management. In: Meena VS, Mishra PK, Bisht JK, Pattanayak A (eds) Agriculturally important microbes for sustainable agriculture; Applications in crop production and protection, vol 2. Springer Nature, Singapore Pte Ltd, pp 331–376Google Scholar
  48. Stearns JC, Woody OZ, McConkey BJ, Glick BR (2012) Effects of bacterial ACC deaminase on Brassica napus gene expression. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 25(5):668–676PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Watanabe K, Tanaka T, Hotta Y, Kuramochi H, Takeuchi Y (2000) Improving salt tolerance of cotton seedlings with 5-aminolevulinic acid. Plant Growth Regul 32:99–103Google Scholar
  50. Weller DM (1988) Biological control of soilborne plant pathogens in the rhizosphere with bacteria. Annu Rev Phytopathol 26:379–407Google Scholar
  51. Zhang WF, Zhang F, Raziuddin R, Gong HJ, Yang ZM, Lu L, Zhou WJ (2008) Effects of 5-aminolevulinic acid on oilseed rape seedling growth under herbicide toxicity stress. J Plant Growth Regul 27(2):159–169Google Scholar
  52. Zorner P, Farmer S, Alibek K (2018) Quantifying crop rhizosphere microbiome ecology: the next frontier in enhancing the commercial utility of agricultural microbes. Ind Biotechnol (New Rochelle NY) 14(3):116–119Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Prof. H.S. Srivastava Foundation for Science and Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MicrobiologyCCS Haryana Agricultural UniversityHisarIndia

Personalised recommendations