Book contents
- Endophytes for a Growing World
- Endophytes for a Growing World
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Role of Endophytes in Growth and Biotic and Abiotic Stress Resistance
- Part III Diversity and Community Ecology of Endophytes
- Part IV Endophytes for Novel Biomolecules and In Vitro Methods
- Part V Application and Commercialisation of Endophytes in Crop Production
- 16 The Science Required to Deliver Epichloë Endophytes to Commerce
- 17 Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria Field Trials in Europe
- 18 Prospecting Crop Wild Relatives for Beneficial Endophytes
- Index
- References
17 - Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria Field Trials in Europe
from Part V - Application and Commercialisation of Endophytes in Crop Production
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2019
Book contents
- Endophytes for a Growing World
- Endophytes for a Growing World
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Role of Endophytes in Growth and Biotic and Abiotic Stress Resistance
- Part III Diversity and Community Ecology of Endophytes
- Part IV Endophytes for Novel Biomolecules and In Vitro Methods
- Part V Application and Commercialisation of Endophytes in Crop Production
- 16 The Science Required to Deliver Epichloë Endophytes to Commerce
- 17 Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria Field Trials in Europe
- 18 Prospecting Crop Wild Relatives for Beneficial Endophytes
- Index
- References
Summary
There are increasingly restrictive EU regulations surrounding the use of chemicals in farming due to increased information linking environmental behaviour and ecotoxicity, such as the effect of the insecticide class neonicotinoids on bees. For this reason there will be a continued move towards a reduction of chemical use in farming throughout the EU. In this context, the use of plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) offers an attractive alternative to chemical fertilisers. A range of commercially available PGPB products, consisting of different species of bacteria, offer a potential alternative to chemicals. This includes: rhizo power® by nadicom who provide bacteria-based organic fertilisers. In this chapter, we outline detailed findings of four field trials undertaken using PGPB in Europe on alfalfa, broccoli, faba beans and tomatoes. All trials using these products yielded positive results such as faster germination, higher yields, increased chlorophyll in leaves and improved tap root formation. Larger plants resulting in significantly higher yield of organic tomatoes were also observed in the tomato field trial. Longer tap root and deeper green colour was observed in the broccoli trial and a reduction in chocolate spot was shown when treated with Bacillus subtilis. Statistically significant higher yields were shown in treated alfalfa crops using Ensifer meliloti.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Endophytes for a Growing World , pp. 371 - 389Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Antoun, H. and Prévost, D. (2005). Ecology of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. In PGPR: Biocontrol and Biofertilization, ed. Siddiqui, Z. A.. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar
Ardisson, G. B., Tosin, M., Barbale, M. and Degli-Innocenti, F. (2014). Biodegradation of plastics in soil and effects on nitrification activity: a laboratory approach. Frontiers in Microbiology, 5, 710.Google Scholar
Bari, R. and Jones, J. D. G. (2009). Role of plant hormones in plant defence responses. Plant Molecular Biology, 69, 473–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borriss, R., Chen, X. H., Rueckert, C. et al. (2011). Relationship of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens clades associated with strains DSM7T and FZB42T: a proposal for Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens subsp. nov. and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum subsp. nov. based on complete genome sequence comparisons. International Journal of Systematic Evolutionary Microbiology, 61, 1786–1801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. F. and Mazzola, M. (2006). Resident bacteria, nitric oxide emission and particle size modulate the effect of Brassica napus seed meal on disease incited by Rhizoctonia solani and Pythium spp. Plant and Soil, 286, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. F., Lamattina, L. and Yamasaki, H. (2010). Nitric oxide signaling by plant-associated bacteria. In Nitric Oxide in Plant Physiology, ed. Hayat, S.. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH, pp. 161–172.Google Scholar
Dhumal, K. N. (1992). Effect of Azotobacter on germination, growth and yield of some vegetables. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural University, 17, 500.Google Scholar
Doornbos, R. F., van Loon, L. C. and Bakker, P. A. (2012). Impact of root exudates and plant defense signaling on bacterial communities in the rhizosphere. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32, 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, M. R., Fischer, S., Egan, D. and Doohan, F. M. (2006). Biological control of Fusarium seedling blight disease of wheat and barley. Phytopathology, 96, 386–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2017). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2017. Building resilience for peace and food security. Rome, FAO.Google Scholar
Figueiredo, M. V. B., Bonifacio, A., Rodrigues, A. C. and Araujo, F. F. (2016). Plant growth-promoting rhizo-bacteria: key mechanisms of action. In Microbial-Mediated Induced Systemic Resistance in Plants, ed. Choudhary, D. K. and Varma, A.. Singapore: Springer Science, pp. 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukuyama, K. (2004). Structure and function of plant-type ferredoxins. Photosynthesis Research, 81, 289–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glick, B. R. (2012). Applications and mechanisms: bacteria promoting growth. Scientifica, 2012, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A., Gupal, M. and Tilak, K. V. (2000). Mechanism of plant growth promotion by rhizobacteria. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology, 38, 856–862.Google ScholarPubMed
Harman, G. E., Herrera-Estrella, A. H., Horwitz, B. A. and Lorito, M. (2012). Trichoderma – from basic biology to biotechnology. Microbiology, 158, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hider, R. C. and Kong, X. (2010). Chemistry and biology of siderophores. Royal Society of Chemistry, 27, 637–657.Google ScholarPubMed
Hofstra, N. and Bouwman, A. F. (2005). Denitrification in agricultural soils: summarizing published data and estimating global annual rates. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 72, 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idris, E. E., Iglesias, D. J., Talon, M. et al. (2007). Tryptophan dependent production of indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) affects level of plant growth promotion by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42. Molecular Plant–Microbe Interactions, 20, 619–626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Idris, E. E. S., Makarewicz, O., Farouk, A. et al. (2002). Extracellular phytase activity of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB 45 contributes to its plant growth-promoting effect. Microbiology, 148, 2097–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jnawali, A. D., Ojha, R. B. and Marahatta, S. (2015). Role of Azotobacter in soil fertility and sustainability – a review. Advances in Plants and Agriculture Research, 2, 64–69.Google Scholar
Kiseleva, A. A., Tarachovskaya, E. R. and Shishova, M. F. (2012). Biosynthesis of phytohormones in algae. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology, 59, 595–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kümmerli, R., Schiessl, K. T., Waldvogel, T., McNeill, K. and Ackermann, M. (2014). Habitat structure and the evolution of diffusible siderophores in bacteria. Ecology Letters, 17, 1536–1544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, J., Chakraborty, S., Hosseinzadeh, P. et al. (2014). Metalloproteins containing cytochrome, iron–sulfur, or copper redox centers. Chemical Reviews, 114, 4366–4469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Narayanasamy, P. (2013). Mechanisms of action of fungal biological control agents. In Biological Management of Diseases of Crops, Progress in Biological Control, ed. Narayanasamy, P.. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science, pp. 99–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pal, K. K. and Gardener, B. M. (2006). Biological control of plant pathogens. Plant Health Instructor. doi: 10.1094/PHI-A-2006-1117-02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, S., Roy, A. and Hazra, S. (2001). In vitro variability of biocontrol potential among some isolates of Gliocladium virens. Advances in Plant Science, 14, 301–303.Google Scholar
Paulitz, T. M. and Belanger, R. R. (2001). Biological control in greenhouse system. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 39, 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philippot, L., Hallin, S. and Schloter, M. (2007). Ecology of denitrifying prokaryotes in agricultural soil. Advances in Agronomy, 96, 249–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasad, R., Kumar, M. and Varma, A. (2015). Role of PGPR in soil fertility and plant health. In Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) and Medicinal Plants. Soil Biology, Vol. 42, ed. Egamberdieva, D., S. Shrivastava and A. Varma. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prathuangwong, S. and Kasem, S. (2003). Potential of new antagonists for controlling soybean bacterial pustule and reducing bactericide application. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of Plant Pathology, 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 2–11.Google Scholar
Renshaw, J. C., Robson, G. D., Trinci, A. P. J. et al. (2002). Fungal siderophores: structures, functions and applications. Mycological Research, 106, 1123–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmusk, S., Behers, L., Muthoni, J., Muraya, A. and Aronsson, A. C. (2017). Perspectives and challenges of microbial application for crop improvement. Frontiers in Plant Sciences, 8, 49.Google ScholarPubMed
Verma, O. P. and Shende, S. T. (1993). Azotobacter a biofertilizer for vegetable crops. Biofertilizer Newsletter, 1, 6–10.Google Scholar
Whipps, J. M., Sreenivasaprasad, S., Muthumeenakshi, S., Rogers, C. W. and Challen, M. P. (2008). Use of Coniothyrium minitans as a biocontrol agent and some molecular aspects of sclerotial myco-parasitism. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 121, 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4
- Cited by