Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 255, Issue 2, pp 555–569 | Cite as

Growth promotion of Prunus rootstocks by root treatment with specific bacterial strains

  • A. Bonaterra
  • L. Ruz
  • E. Badosa
  • J. Pinochet
  • E. Montesinos
Article

Abstract

A collection of bacterial strains obtained from a wide-range origin was screened for ability to promote growth in two types of Prunus rootstocks in a commercial nursery. Only few strains promoted growth significantly and consistently, and a strong specificity for the rootstock cultivar was observed. Irrigation of plants with Pseudomonas fluorescens EPS282 and Pantoea agglomerans EPS427 significantly increased plant height and root weight of the plum Marianna 2624 and the peach–almond hybrid GF-677, respectively. Plant height showed a higher rate of growth in early stages of development (2.6–3.5 times the non-treated controls), but the effect decreased with plant age. However, in aged plants growth promotion was more significant on root weight (1.9 times the non-treated controls) than on plant height. The efficacy of growth promotion and the persistence of strains in the root environment were dependent on the bacterial inoculum concentration applied. Increases in root development were maximum at inoculum concentrations of up to 8 log10 CFU ml−1 (ca 10 log10 CFU L−1 of potting mix). Population levels at the optimum inoculum concentration were around 7 log10 CFU g f.w.−1 root material at early stages of development and decreased to 4 log10 CFU g f.w.−1 after several months of development. The best plant growth-promoting strains were very diverse in secondary metabolite production and antagonistic ability against several plant pathogens.

dose–response effect in vitro antagonism Prunus nursery Pantoea agglomerans Pseudomonas fluorescens secondary metabolites 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alemany J 2001 Characterization of metabolites produced by Pseudomonas fluorescens effective in the biological control of fungal phytopathogens. PhD Thesis. University of Girona.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson A J and Guerra D 1985 Responses of bean to root colonization with Pseudomonas putida in a hydroponic system. Phytopathology 75, 992–995.Google Scholar
  3. Åström B 1991 Role of bacterial cyanide production in differential reactions of plant cultivars to deleterious rhizosphere pseudomonads. Plant Soil 133, 93–100.Google Scholar
  4. Bahme J B, Schroth M N, Van Gundy S D, Weinhold A R and Tolentino D M 1988 Effect of inocula delivery systems on rhizobacterial colonization of underground organs of potato. Phytopathology 78, 534–542.Google Scholar
  5. Barazani O and Friedman J 1999 Is IAA the major root growth factor secreted from plant-growth-mediating bacteria? J. Chem. Ecol. 25, 2397–2406.Google Scholar
  6. Becker J O and Cook R J 1988 Role of siderophores in suppression of Pythium species and production of increased-growth response of wheat by fluorescent pseudomonads. Phytopathology 78, 778–782.Google Scholar
  7. Benizri E, Baudoin E and Guckert A 2001 Root colonization by inoculated plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 11, 557–574.Google Scholar
  8. Boruah H P and Dileep Kumar B S 2002 Biological activity of secondary metabolites produced by a strain of Pseudomonas fluorescens. Folia Microbiol. 47, 359–363.Google Scholar
  9. Brito Alvarez M A, Gagné S and Antoun H 1995 Effect of compost on rhizosphere microflora of the tomato and on the incidence of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61, 194–199.Google Scholar
  10. Burr T J, Schroth M N and Suslow T V 1978. Increased potato yields by treatments of seed pieces with specific strains of Pseudomonas fluorescens and P. putida. Phytopathology 68, 1377–1383.Google Scholar
  11. Caesar A J and Burr T J 1987 Growth promotion of apple seedlings and rootstocks by specific strains of bacteria. Phytopathology 77, 1583–1588.Google Scholar
  12. Chabot R, Antoun H, Kloepper J W and Beauchamp C J 1996 Root colonization of maize and lettuce by bioluminiscent Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar phaseoli. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62, 2767–2772.Google Scholar
  13. Dashti N, Zhang F, Hynes R and Smith D L 1997 Application of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria to soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) increases protein and dry matter yield under shortseason conditions. Plant Soil 188, 33–41.Google Scholar
  14. Dashti N, Zhang F, Hynes R and Smith D L 1998 Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria accelerate nodulation and increase nitrogen fixation activity by field grown soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] under short season conditions. Plant Soil 200, 205–213.Google Scholar
  15. Dileep Kumar B S and Dube H C 1992 Seed bacterization with a fluorescent Pseudomonas for enhanced plant growth, yield and disease control. Soil Biol. Biochem. 24, 539–542Google Scholar
  16. Dileep Kumar B S, Berggren I and Mårtenson A M 2001 Potential for improving pea production by co-inoculation with fluorescent Pseudomonas and Rhizobium. Plant Soil 229, 25–34.Google Scholar
  17. Dye D W 1969 A taxonomic study of the genus Erwinia. III The “herbicola” group. N. Z. J. Sci. 12, 833–839.Google Scholar
  18. Ellis R J, Timms-Wilson T M and Bailey M J 2000. Identification of conserved traits in fluorescent pseudomonads with antifungal activity. Environ. Microbiol. 2, 274–284.Google Scholar
  19. Ewing W H and Fife M A 1972 Enterobacter agglomerans (Beijerinck) comb. nov. (the herbicola-lathyri bacteria). Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 22, 4–11.Google Scholar
  20. Frändberg and Shnürer D 1998 Antifungal activity of chitinolytic bacteria isolated from airtight stored cereal grain. Can. J. Microbiol. 44, 121–127.Google Scholar
  21. Gagné S, Dehbi L, Le Quéré D, Cayer F, Morin J L, Lemay L, Fournier N 1993 Increase of greenhouse tomato fruit yields by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) inoculated into the peat-based growing media. Soil Biol. Biochem. 25, 269–272.Google Scholar
  22. Gardner J M, Chandler J L and Feldman A W 1984 Growth promotion and inhibition by antibiotic-producing fluorescent pseudomonads on citrus roots. Plant Soil 77, 103–113.Google Scholar
  23. Gavini F, Mergaert J, Beji A, Mielcarek C, Izard D, Kersters K, de Ley J 1989 Transfer of Enterobacter agglomerans (Beijerink 1888) Ewing and Fife 1972 to Pantoea gen. nov. as Pantoea agglomerans comb. nov. and description of Pantoea dispersa sp.nov. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 39, 337–345.Google Scholar
  24. Germida J J and Walley F L 1996 Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria alter rooting patterns and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonization of field-grown spring wheat. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 23, 113–129.Google Scholar
  25. Gutierrez-Mañero F J, Acero N, Lucas J A and Probanza A 1996 The influence of native rhizobacteria on European alder (Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn.) growth. Plant Soil 182, 67–74.Google Scholar
  26. Handelsman J and Staab E V 1996 Biocontrol of soilborne plant pathogens. Plant Cell 8, 1855–1869Google Scholar
  27. Howie W J and Echandi E 1983 Rhizobacteria: Influence of cultivar and soil type on plant growth and yield of potato. Soil Biol. Biochem. 15, 127–132.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson K B 1994 Dose-response relationships and inundative biological control. Phytopathology 84, 780–784.Google Scholar
  29. Keel C, Schinder U, Maurhofer M, Voisard M, Laville J, Burger U, Wirthner P, Haas D and Défago G 1992 Suppresion of root diseases by Pseudomonas fluorescens CHAO: importance of the bacterial secondary metabolite 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 5, 4–13.Google Scholar
  30. King E O, Ward M K and Rainey D E 1954 Two simple media for the demonstration of the pyocyanin and fluoroscein. J. Lab. Clin. Med. 44, 301–307Google Scholar
  31. Kloepper J W 1992 Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria as biological control agents. In F. Blaine Metting, Jr. (ed.) pp. 255–274. Soil Microbial Ecology. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Kloepper J W 1996 Host specificity in microbe-microbe interactions. Bioscience 46, 406–409.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Kloepper J W, Hume D J, Scher F M, Singleton C, Tipping B, Laliberté M, Frauley K, Kutchaw T, Simonson C, Lifshitz R, Zaleska I and Lee L 1988 Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on canola (rapeseed). Plant Dis. 72, 42–46.Google Scholar
  35. Landa B B, Mavrodi O V, Raaijmakers J M, McSpadden Gardener B B, Thomashow L S and Weller D M 2002 Differential ability of genotypes of 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol-producing Pseudomonas fluorescens strains to colonize the roots of pea plants. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68, 3226–3237.Google Scholar
  36. Latour X, Corberand T, Laguerre G, Allard F and Lemanceau P 1996 The composition of fluorescent pseudomonad population associated with roots is influenced by plant and soil type. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62, 2449–2456.Google Scholar
  37. Leeman M, van Pelt J A, Hendrickx M J, Scheffer R J, Bakker P A H M and Schippers B 1995 Biocontrol of Fusarium wilt of radish in commercial greenhouse trials by seed treatment with Pseudomonas fluorescens WCS374. Phytopathology 85, 1301– 1305.Google Scholar
  38. Lindow S E, Arny D C and Upper C D 1983 Biological control of frost injury: An isolate of Erwinia herbicola antagonistic to ice nucleation active bacteria. Phytopathology 73, 1097–1102.Google Scholar
  39. Liu L, Kloepper J W and Tuzun S 1995 Induction of systemic resistance in cucumber against bacterial angular leaf spot by plant-promoting rhizobacteria. Phytopathology 85, 843–847.Google Scholar
  40. Maniatis T, Fritsch E F and Sambrook J 1982 Molecular Cloning: A laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.Google Scholar
  41. Maurhofer M, Hase C, Meuwly P, Métraux J-P and Défago G 1994 Induction of systemic resistance of tobaccco to tobacco necrosis virus by the root-colonizing Pseudomonas fluorescens strain CHAO: Influence of the gacA gene and of pyoverdine production. Phytopathology 84, 139–146.Google Scholar
  42. Mazzola M, Cook R J, Thomashow L S, Weller D M and Pierson L S III 1992 Contribution of phenazine antibiotic biosynthesis to the ecological competence of fluorescents pseudomonads in soil habitats. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58, 2616–2624.Google Scholar
  43. Miller T D and Schroth M N 1972 Monitoring the epiphytic population of Erwinia amylovora on pear with selective media. Phytopathology 62, 1175–1182.Google Scholar
  44. Mirza M S, Ahmad W, Latif F, Haurat J, Bally R, Normand P and Malik K A 2001 Isolation, partial characterization, and the effect of plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) on micro-propagated sugarcane in vitro. Plant Soil 237, 47–54.Google Scholar
  45. Montesinos E and Bonaterra A 1996 Dose-response models in biological control of plant pathogens: An empirical verification. Phytopathology 86, 464–472.Google Scholar
  46. Montesinos E, Bonaterra A, Ophir Y and Beer S V 1996 Antagonism of selected bacterial strains to Stemphylium vesicarium and biological control of brown spot of pear under controlled environment conditions. Phytopathology 86, 856–863.Google Scholar
  47. O'sullivan D J and O'Gara F 1992 Traits of fluorescent Pseudomonas spp. involved in suppression of plant root pathogens. Microbiol. Rev. 56, 662–676.Google Scholar
  48. Palleroni N J 1984 Genus I Pseudomonas. In Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, 8 ed. Eds. N R Krieg and J G Holt pp. 141–199. Williams & Wilkins Co., Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  49. Rainey P B, Bailey M J and Thompson I P 1994 Phenotypic and genotypic diversity of fluorescent pseudomonads isolated from field grown sugarbeet. Microbiology 140, 2315–2331.Google Scholar
  50. Raupach G S and Kloepper J W 1998 Mixtures of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria enhance biological control of multiple cucumber pathogens. Phytopathology 88, 1158–1164.Google Scholar
  51. Rodríguez-Barrueco C, Cervantes E, Subbarao N S and Rodríguez-Caceres E 1991 Growth promoting effect of Azospirillum brasilense on Casuarina cunninghamiana Miq. seedlings. Plant Soil. 135, 121–124.Google Scholar
  52. Schippers B A, Bakker W, Bakker P and Van Peer R 1991 Beneficial and deleterious effects of HCN-producing pseudomonads on rhizosphere interactions. Plant Soil 129, 75–83.Google Scholar
  53. Schwyn B and Neilands J B 1987 Universal chemical assay for the detection and the determination of siderophores. Anal. Biochem. 160, 47–56.Google Scholar
  54. Sneath P H A 1966. Identification methods applied to Chromobacterium. In Identification Methods for Microbiologist, Part A. Eds B M Gibb and F A Skinner. pp. 15–20. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  55. Utkhede R S and Smith E M 1992 Promotion of apple tree growth and fruit production by the EBW-4 strain of Bacillus subtilis in apple replant disease soil. Can. J. Microbiol. 38, 1270–1273.Google Scholar
  56. Vanderplank J E 1975 Principles of Plant Infection. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  57. van Overbeek L S and Van Elsas J D 1995 Root exudate-induced promoter activity in Pseudomonas fluorescens mutants in the wheat rhizosphere. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61, 890–898.Google Scholar
  58. Weller D M, Raaijmakers J M, McSpadden Gardener B B and Thomashow L S 2002 Microbial populations responsible for specific soil suppressiveness to plant pathogens. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 40, 309–348.Google Scholar
  59. Wodzinski R S and Paulin J P 1994 Frequency and diversity of antibiotic production by putative Erwinia herbicola strains. Appl. Bacteriol. 76, 603–607.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Bonaterra
    • 1
  • L. Ruz
    • 1
  • E. Badosa
    • 1
  • J. Pinochet
    • 2
  • E. Montesinos
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Food and Agricultural Technology and CeRTA-CIDSAVUniversity of GironaGironaSpain
  2. 2.Agromillora Catalana, S. A.Subirats (Barcelona)Spain

Personalised recommendations