| Title |
Crop management as a driving force of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria physiology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-3232-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Juliana Melo, Manuela Carolino, Luís Carvalho, Patrícia Correia, Rogério Tenreiro, Sandra Chaves, Ana I. Meleiro, Sávio B. de Souza, Teresa Dias, Cristina Cruz, Alessandro C. Ramos |
| Abstract |
Crop management systems influence plant productivity and nutrient use efficiency, as well as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), which are known to influence the growth of plants via phytohormone production, phosphate solubilization, nitrogen (N) fixation and antimicrobial activity. The objective of this study was to compare the influence of two crop management system on microbial PGPR features. PGPR isolated from the rhizospheres of Carica papaya L. grown under two distinct management systems (conventional and organic) were identified and characterized. The 12 strains most efficient in solubilizing inorganic phosphate belonged to the genera Burkholderia, Klebsiella, and Leclercia. N fixation was observed in the strains B. vietnamiensis from the conventional farming system and B. vietnamiensis, B. cepacia and Leclercia sp. from the organic farming system. The B. vietnamiensis, B. cepacia, Klebsiella sp. and Klebsiella sp. isolates showed antifungal activity, while Leclercia sp. did not. The strains B. vietnamiensis and Enterobcter sp. (isolated from the conventional farming system) and Klebsiella sp. (isolated from the organic farming system) were efficient at solubilizing phosphate, producing phytohormones and siderophores, and inhibiting the mycelial growth of various phytopathogenic fungi (Botrytis cinerea, Pestalotia sp., Alternaria sp., Phoma sp., Fusarium culmorum, Geotrichum candidum). Physiological differences between the isolates from the two crop management regimes were distinguishable after 10 years of distinct management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 57 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 25% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 30 | 51% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,384,302
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#935
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,732
of 321,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#100
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.