Citation: Ananya Mukherjee, Puja Bhattacharjee, Rituparna Das, Arundhati Pal, Amal K. Paul. Endophytic bacteria with plant growth promoting abilities from Ophioglossum reticulatum L.[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 596-612. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.596
[1] | Rudoviko Galileya Medison, Litao Tan, Milca Banda Medison, Kenani Edward Chiwina . Use of beneficial bacterial endophytes: A practical strategy to achieve sustainable agriculture. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(4): 624-643. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022040 |
[2] | Yulduzkhon Abdullaeva, Gulsanam Mardonova, Farkhod Eshboev, Massimiliano Cardinale, Dilfuza Egamberdieva . Harnessing chickpea bacterial endophytes for improved plant health and fitness. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(3): 489-506. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024024 |
[3] | Alexandra Díez-Méndez, Raul Rivas . Improvement of saffron production using Curtobacterium herbarum as a bioinoculant under greenhouse conditions. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 354-364. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.354 |
[4] | Elisa Gamalero, Bernard R. Glick . Use of plant growth-promoting bacteria to facilitate phytoremediation. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(2): 415-448. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024021 |
[5] | Shubhra Singh, Douglas J. H. Shyu . Perspective on utilization of Bacillus species as plant probiotics for different crops in adverse conditions. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(1): 220-238. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024011 |
[6] | Lorena Carro, Imen Nouioui . Taxonomy and systematics of plant probiotic bacteria in the genomic era. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 383-412. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.383 |
[7] | Vyacheslav Shurigin, Burak Alaylar, Kakhramon Davranov, Stephan Wirth, Sonoko Dorothea Bellingrath-Kimura, Dilfuza Egamberdieva . Diversity and biological activity of culturable endophytic bacteria associated with marigold (Calendula officinalis L.). AIMS Microbiology, 2021, 7(3): 336-353. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2021021 |
[8] | Nilde Antonella Di Benedetto, Maria Rosaria Corbo, Daniela Campaniello, Mariagrazia Pia Cataldi, Antonio Bevilacqua, Milena Sinigaglia, Zina Flagella . The role of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria in improving nitrogen use efficiency for sustainable crop production: a focus on wheat. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 413-434. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.413 |
[9] | Naoual Bouremani, Hafsa Cherif-Silini, Allaoua Silini, Nour El Houda Rabhi, Ali Chenari Bouket, Lassaad Belbahri . Osmotolerant plant growth promoting bacteria mitigate adverse effects of drought stress on wheat growth. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(3): 507-541. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024025 |
[10] | Xavier Cruz-González, Nereha Laza-Pérez, Pedro F. Mateos, Raúl Rivas . Analysis and effect of the use of biofertilizers on Trifolium rubens L., a preferential attention species in Castile and Leon, Spain, with the aim of increasing the plants conservation status. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(4): 733-746. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.4.733 |
CAS | Chrome azurol S |
℃ | Degree Celsius |
Dia | Diameter |
g | Acceleration due to gravity |
h | Hour |
IAA | Indole-3-acetic acid |
ml | Millilitre |
min | Minute |
mm | Millimeter |
µg | Microgram |
µm | Micrometer |
nm | Nanometre |
N2 | Nitrogen |
OD | Optical density |
PHB | Poly-3-hydroxybutyrate |
sec | Second |
SD | Standard deviation |
PIPES | Piperazine-N, N'-bis (2-ethanesulfonic acid) |
O. reticulatum L. | Ophioglossum reticulatum L. |
All plants in nature harbor a diverse community of endophytic bacteria that colonize the internal tissues of the plant without imposing any negative impact on their host [1]. They have been isolated from roots, leaves, stems, flowers, fruits, and seeds from various plants [2] and found to play a pivotal role in plant growth enhancement. Production of phytohormones, solubilization of inorganic phosphate, sequestration of iron by siderophore, nitrogen fixation, etc. are the different ways by which endophytic bacteria stimulate plant growth [3,4]. Such endophytic bacteria with plant growth promoting characters have been reported from different plants [5,6]. These include species of Pseudomonas, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Klebsiella, Alcaligenes, Arthrobacter, Burkholderia, Bacillus and Serratia [7]. Enterobacter spp. like E. sakazakii and E. agglomerans from soybean [8]; E. cloacae from citrus and maize [9,10] and E. asburiae from sweet potato [11] have been reported to possess multiple plant growth promoting activities. Planococcus sp., Micrococcus sp., Bacillus sp., Methylococcus sp., Acinetobacter sp. and Acetobacter sp. endophytic to Rosa damascena trigintipeta were found to produce indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), solubilize calcium phosphate and produce siderophore [12].
In recent years, much attention has been focused on the natural methods of crop production for moving towards agriculturally and environmentally sustainable development. The use of bacterial endophytes as bio-fertilizers for improving crop production is gaining importance among agronomists and environmentalists as they would significantly reduce chemical input into the environment [13,14]. The bacterial strain, Bacillus sp. SLS18 has been found to promote the biomass production of sweet sorghum [14], while the growth of poplar tree was increased by 60% after inoculation with different endophytic strains [15]. Both mycorrhizal fungi and bacterial endophyte have also been shown to enhance biomass production in switch grass [16,17].
Ophioglossum reticulatum L. (Ophioglossaceae) is a small terrestrial erect fern, pantropical in distribution and is differentiated into a sub-terranean rhizome with roots and a single leaf bearing a simple, stalked, cylindrical sporangiferous spike with two rows of embedded sporangia. Out of the 40 species so far known, in India it is represented only by 12 species. However, unsustainable utilization is causing serious threat to the survival of a number of species. From economic view points young leaves are commonly used as salad or vegetable. Similarly, decoction of leaves and rhizomes are also used topically on boils, wounds and as an anti-inflammatory medicine. Ophioglossum spp. have been reported to be colonized by various species of vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) fungi, like Endogone microcarpa, Enterophospora sp., Gigaspora sp., Glomus epigaeum, G. macrocarpum and G. occulatum [18]. Such mycorrhizal association has been shown to improve plant health, disease resistance and drought tolerance. However, bacteria endophytic to O. reticulatum L. with plant growth promoting potential have not yet been reported. The aim of the present study was to isolate the endophytic bacteria from the surface sterilized leaf lamina, petiole, rhizome and spike of O. reticulatum L., characterize them to determine their taxonomic identity and to determine and evaluate their plant growth promoting activities.
Ophioglossum reticulatum L. (family Ophioglossaceae) plants with healthy leaves and mature spike were collected from Darjeeling hills, West Bengal (27°7' N and 88°2' E, 6710' above sea level) during August–September, 2015–2016. Plants along with soil were collected in polythene bags, brought to the laboratory and stored at 4 ℃ until used for the isolation of bacterial endophytes.
Bacterial endophytes were isolated from the leaf lamina, petiole, rhizome and spike of healthy O. reticulatum L. The collected plant parts were first washed thoroughly under running tap water and transferred to sterile glass bottles for surface sterilization. The samples were sterilized by consecutive immersion in 70% ethanol (2–3 min), 0.5% sodium hypochlorite (5–10 min) and again with 70% ethanol for 30 sec. After washing for several times in sterile distilled water, the samples were cut into 2 mm sections and plated aseptically on previously prepared tryptic soy agar, glycerol asparagine agar and R2A agar plates for isolation of bacteria. The plates were then incubated at 32 ℃ for 2–4 days and observed for growth of the bacterial colonies surrounding the leaf lamina, petiole, rhizome and spike sections. Morphologically distinguishable bacterial colonies growing out of the plant segments were isolated in pure form by dilution streaking and maintained by regular sub-culturing on the same media. Bacterial strains were characterized and identified following micromorphological and physio-biochemical analysis following standard protocols.
Based on the total number of samples plated and the number of samples yielding isolates, the colonization frequency and the isolation rate were calculated. Colonization frequency of the bacterial endophytes was calculated as the total number of plant segments yielding the bacteria divided by the total number of segments incubated. Isolation rate was determined as the number of bacterial isolates obtained from the plant samples divided by the total number of samples incubated. The Shannon-Weaver diversity index was calculated as H = – Σ Pi ln Pi, where Pi is the species abundance.
Antibiotic sensitivity of the endophytic isolates was determined following the Kirby Bauer disc-diffusion assay method using antibiotic impregnated discs (6 mm dia., Himedia, India). Based on the diameter of inhibition zone recorded to nearest millimeter, the organisms were categorized as resistant, intermediate and sensitive following DIFCO Manual 10th edition (1984). Antibiotics used were penicillin G (1 Unit/disc), streptomycin (10 µg/disc), sulphatriad (300 µg/disc), tetracycline (25 µg/disc), ampicillin (10 µg/disc), and chloramphenicol (25 µg/disc).
The ability of the endophytes to produce indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) was determined following Salkowski colorimetric assay. Isolates were grown in tryptophan broth at 32 ℃ for 5 days and the culture filtrate was separated by centrifugation at 10,000 × g for 10 min. To 1 ml of the culture filtrate, 3 ml of Salkowski's reagent and 2 ml of distilled water was added. After an incubation of 30 min in dark, the tubes were observed for the development of pink colour. The OD was measured at 540 nm using a Systronics Photoelectric Colorimeter 112 and the quantity of the IAA produced was estimated from the standard curve prepared in the same way with authentic IAA from Sigma (USA).
Ability of the bacterial endophytes for solubilizing insoluble phosphate was determined on Pikovskaya's medium supplemented with calcium triphosphate. The isolates were inoculated onto Pikovskaya agar and incubated for 5–7 days at 32 ℃. The presence of halo zone around the bacterial colony was considered as an indicator for positive mineral phosphate solubilization. Solubilization index was calculated according to the ratio of the halo diameter to the colony diameter.
Overnight grown bacterial endophytes were washed thoroughly in sterile normal saline and inoculated in Norris nitrogen-free medium. The ability of the isolates to fix atmospheric nitrogen was indicated by their growth in N2-free medium.
Production of siderophore by the endophytic bacterial isolates was tested qualitatively using chrome azurol S (CAS) agar following the protocol of Alexander and Zuberer [19]. The CAS agar, a mixture of four solutions, Solution 1 (Fe-CAS indicator solution), Solution 2 (PIPES buffer), Solution 3 (glucose, mannitol and trace elements) and Solution 4 (casamino acid) was prepared and sterilized separately before mixing. This mixture (Fe-CAS dye complex) yielded blue to dark green colour. The bacterial isolates were grown on it at 32 ℃ for 96 h. Orange halos around the colonies indicated siderophore production.
Surface sterilized segments of leaf lamina, petiole, rhizome and spike of Ophioglossum reticulatum L. incubated on tryptic soy agar, glycerol asparagine agar and R2A agar plates showed growth of morphologically distinguishable bacterial colonies surrounding the segments after 48–96 h of incubation at 32 ℃ (Figure 1). Avoiding the repetitive strains, a total of 20 phenotypically distinguishable bacterial endophytes were isolated in pure form from 497 segments (202 leaf lamina, 60 petiole, 179 rhizome and 56 spike) of O. reticulatum L. Out of these 20 isolates, maximum (8) were derived from the rhizome and was followed by the leaf lamina (5), petiole (4), and the spike (3) tissues (Table 1). The colonization frequency was recorded to be low in petiole (35%) and spike (58.92%) samples as compared to leaf lamina (61.38%) and rhizome (87.7%). The isolation rate was poor in leaf lamina (0.02) but increased gradually in rhizome (0.04), spike (0.05) and petiole (0.06) samples. The Shannon-Weaver diversity index showed that the rhizome (1.54) of O. reticulatum L. harbor more diverse types of endophytic bacteria than in its petiole (1.05), leaf lamina (1.01) and spike (0.98).
Parameters | Plant tissue | Total | |||
Leaf lamina | Petiole | Rhizome | Spike | ||
Number of samples used | 202 | 60 | 179 | 56 | 497 |
Samples yielding endophytic isolates | 124 | 21 | 157 | 33 | 335 |
Number of endophytic isolates | 5 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 20 |
Colonizing frequency (%)a | 61.38 | 35.00 | 87.70 | 58.92 | 67.40 |
Isolation rateb | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.04 |
Shannon-Weaver diversity indexc | 1.01 | 1.05 | 1.54 | 0.98 | 1.08 |
aColonization frequency was calculated as the total number of plant samples infected by bacteria divided by the total number of samples incubated. bIsolation rate was calculated as the number of bacterial isolates obtained from plant samples divided by the total number of samples incubated. cShannon-Weaver diversity index was calculated as: H = – Ʃ Pi X ln Pi, where, Pi is the proportion of individuals that species "i" contributes to the total. |
The bacterial endophytes of O. reticulatum L. were primarily characterized on the basis of micromorphological (Table 2) and physio-biochemical (Table 3) characters. Out of the 20 isolates 13 were Gram-positive (12 rods and a coccus) and 7 were Gram-negative rods. Almost all the isolates showed motility except OPL 4, OPP 4 and OPS 1. Endospore formation was observed in all the Gram-positive rods. Enzyme profile of the endophytes showed that while all the bacteria produced catalase, 95% of them produced caseinase and 85% produced gelatinase. Production of amylase (60%), inulinase (65%), PHB depolymerase (55%), lipase, CM cellulase and nitrate reductase (50%) were not uncommon. Glucose was utilized by all the isolates, while majority of the isolates could ferment glucose, sucrose and fructose (Table 4).
Plant part | Isolate | Colony morphology | Cell shape | Size, µm | Gram nature | Endospore formation | Motility |
Leaf lamina | OPL 1 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, solitary or in chains of 4–6 cells | 3.53–5.05 × 0.80–1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + |
OPL 2 | Cream, smooth, regular | Rods, mostly solitary, rarely in pairs | 4.04–5.05 × 1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPL 3 | Yellow, smooth, irregular | Rods, solitary, often in chains of 4–6 cells | 2.52–5.05 × 1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPL 4 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly in chains of 6–7 cells | 3.03–4.04 × 1.01–1.2 | Gram + ve | + | - | |
OPL 5 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly solitary or in pairs | 3.03–4.04 × 1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly solitary or in pairs | 3.03–5.05 × 0.20 | Gram – ve | – | + |
OPP 2 | White, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly in pairs, sometimes solitary | 3.03–5.05 × 0.80–1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPP 3 | Yellow, smooth, regular | Rods, mostly in groups, sometimes solitary | 0.50–1.51 × 0.25–0.50 | Gram – ve | – | + | |
OPP 4 | White, smooth, regular | Cocci, irregular groups of many cells | 0.505–0.808 dia | Gram + ve | – | – | |
Rhizome | OPR 1 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly in pairs, sometimes solitary | 2.02–4.04 × 0.50 | Gram – ve | – | + |
OPR 2 | Cream, smooth, regular | Rods, mostly solitary | 1.51–2.02 × 0.50 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPR 3 | White, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly in chains of 3–7 cells | 4.04–7.07 × 1.01–1.11 | Gram – ve | – | + | |
OPR 4 | Cream, rough, irregular | Rods, mostly in pairs, rarely solitary | 3.03–5.05 × 0.50–1.01 | Gram – ve | – | + | |
OPR 5 | Cream, smooth, regular | Rods, mostly solitary | 3.03–4.04 × 0.80 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPR 6 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly solitary, sometimes in pairs | 2.52–4.04 × 0.50–1.01 | Gram – ve | – | + | |
OPR 7 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly solitary | 3.03–4.04 × 0.80 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPR 8 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly solitary, sometimes in pairs | 4.04–5.05 × 1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
Spike | OPS 1 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly in pairs rarely in chains | 5.05–6.06 × 1.01–1.51 | Gram + ve | + | – |
OPS 2 | Yellow, smooth, regular | Rods, solitary or in pairs | 2.02–4.04 × 0.50 | Gram – ve | – | + | |
OPS 3 | Brown, smooth, regular | Rods, in chains of 2–4 cells, or solitary | 3.03–5.05 × 1.01–1.51 | Gram + ve | + | + |
Plant part | Isolate | Production of enzyme | |||||||||
Catalase | Amylase | Caseinase | Gelatinase | Nitrate reductase | Cellulase | Lipase | Inulinase | Pectinase | PHB depolymerase | ||
Leaf lamina | OPL 1 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – |
OPL 2 | + | + | + | – | – | – | – | + | + | – | |
OPL 3 | + | – | + | + | – | – | – | – | – | + | |
OPL 4 | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | |
OPL 5 | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | – | – | + | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | + |
OPP 2 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | |
OPP 3 | + | – | + | – | + | + | – | + | + | + | |
OPP 4 | + | – | + | + | – | + | – | + | – | + | |
Rhizome | OPR 1 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + |
OPR 2 | + | + | + | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | |
OPR 3 | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | + | |
OPR 4 | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | – | – | – | |
OPR 5 | + | – | + | + | – | + | – | – | – | – | |
OPR 6 | + | – | – | + | – | + | – | – | – | – | |
OPR 7 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | + | |
OPR 8 | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | |
Spike | OPS 1 | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | + | – |
OPS 2 | + | – | + | + | – | + | – | – | – | – | |
OPS 3 | + | – | + | + | – | – | + | + | – | + | |
"+" indicate positive response, "–" indicate negative response. |
Plant tissue | Bacterial isolate | Glucose | Sucrose | Fructose | Maltose | Lactose | |||||
U | F | U | F | U | F | U | F | U | F | ||
Leaf lamina | OPL 1 | + | – | + | – | + | – | + | + | + | – |
OPL 2 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | |
OPL 3 | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | – | + | – | |
OPL 4 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | |
OPL 5 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
OPP 2 | + | + | + | – | + | – | – | – | + | + | |
OPP 3 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | – | |
OPP 4 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
Rhizome | OPR 1 | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | + |
OPR 2 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | – | |
OPR 3 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
OPR 4 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | |
OPR 5 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | |
OPR 6 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | |
OPR 7 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
OPR 8 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | |
Spike | OPS 1 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | + |
OPS 2 | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | |
OPS 3 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | – | |
"+" indicate positive response, "–" indicate negative response. "U" indicate utilization, "F" indicate fermentation. *Fermentation of sugars was screened in Davis and Mingiolis medium supplemented with 0.1% bromothymol blue and 1% sugar. |
The micromorphological and biochemical characteristics (Tables 2–4) along with antibiotic sensitivity pattern (Table 5) of the endophytic bacterial isolates were compared with those described in Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology [20]. It was apparent that majority of the isolates (12 out of 20) could be assigned tentatively to the genus Bacillus. These include the isolates OPL 1, OPL 2, OPL 3, OPL 4, OPL 5, OPP 2, OPR 2, OPR 5, OPR 7, OPR 8, OPS 1 and OPS 3. The isolates OPP 1, OPP 3, OPR 1, OPR 3, OPR 4, OPR 6 and OPS 2 were tentatively placed under the genus Pseudomonas. Isolate OPP 4, the only Gram-positive, non-motile cocci was identified as Staphylococcus sp .
Plant part | Bacterial isolate | Antibiotics | |||||||||||
Penicillin G =(1 unit) | Streptomycin (10 µg) | Sulphatriad (300 µg) | Tetracycline (25 µg) | Ampicillin (10 µg) | Chloramphenicol (25 µg) | ||||||||
Diaa (mm) | Rsb | Diaa (mm) | Rsb | Diaa (mm) | Rsb | Diaa (mm) | Rsb | Diaa (mm) | Rsb | Diaa (mm) | Rsb | ||
Leaf lamina | OPL 1 | 10.3 ± 0.57 | R | 17.0 ± 1.00 | S | 18.0 ± 1.00 | S | 16.5 ± 0.50 | I | 9.3 ± 0.57 | R | 24.8 ± 0.76 | S |
OPL 2 | 13.6 ± 0.57 | R | 22.0 ± 1.00 | S | 25.6 ± 0.57 | S | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | 13.6 ± 0.57 | R | 26.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
OPL 3 | 25.0 ± 1.00 | R | 21.3 ± 0.57 | S | 27.3 ± 0.57 | S | 24.3 ± 0.57 | S | 20.0 ± 1.00 | R | 26.3 ± 0.57 | S | |
OPL 4 | 10.6 ± 0.57 | R | 20.6 ± 0.57 | S | 25.0 ± 1.00 | S | 21.6 ± 0.57 | S | – | R | 26. ± 0.57 | S | |
OPL 5 | 27.3 ± 0.57 | I | 27.5 ± 0.50 | S | 22.5 ± 0.50 | S | 25.0 ± 1.00 | S | 19.6 ± 0.57 | R | 23.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | 9.3 ± 0.57 | R | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | 32.3 ± 0.57 | S | 20.5 ± 0.50 | S | 12.3 ± 0.57 | R | 22.8 ± 0.76 | S |
OPP 2 | – | R | 13.3 ± 0.57 | I | – | R | 19.6 ± 0.57 | S | – | R | 27.6 ± 0.57 | S | |
OPP 3 | 9.6 ± 0.57 | R | 13.3 ± 0.57 | I | – | R | 27.3 ± 0.57 | S | 8.3 ± 0.57 | R | 28.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
OPP 4 | 30.0 ± 1.00 | S | 21.6 ± 0.57 | S | – | R | 22.8 ± 0.76 | S | 7.3 ± 0.57 | R | 29.3 ± 0.57 | S | |
Rhizome | OPR 1 | – | R | 23.0 ± 1.00 | S | 23.5 ± 0.50 | S | 21.3 ± 0.57 | S | – | R | 27.8 ± 0.76 | S |
OPR 2 | 40.8 ± 0.76 | S | 32.3 ± 0.57 | S | 36.3 ± 0.57 | S | 26.0 ± 1.00 | S | 37.6 ± 0.57 | S | 28.3 ± 0.57 | S | |
OPR 3 | 21.0 ± 1.00 | R | 22.6 ± 0.57 | S | – | R | – | R | 8.3 ± 0.57 | R | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
OPR 4 | – | R | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | – | R | 13.3 ± 0.57 | R | – | R | 21.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
OPR 5 | 25.0 ± 1.00 | R | 22.8 ± 0.76 | S | 10.3 ± 0.57 | R | 21.0 ± 1.00 | S | 20.6 ± 0.57 | R | 27.6 ± 0.57 | S | |
OPR 6 | – | R | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | 19.8 ± 0.76 | S | 24.3 ± 0.57 | S | 30.0 ± 1.00 | S | 25.3 ± 0.57 | S | |
OPR 7 | 19.3 ± 0.57 | R | 9.5 ± 0.50 | R | 22.0 ± 1.00 | S | 23.8 ± 0.76 | S | 18.3 ± 0.57 | R | 31 3 ± 0.50 | S | |
OPR 8 | – | R | 13.3 ± 0.57 | I | – | R | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | 7.6 ± 0.57 | R | 25.5 ± 0.50 | S | |
Spike | OPS 1 | – | R | 13.0 ± 1.00 | I | 22.3 ± 0.57 | S | 20.5 ± 0.50 | S | 8.6 ± 0.57 | R | 25.0 ± 1.00 | S |
OPS 2 | 31.8 ± 0.76 | S | 24.0 ± 0.50 | S | 29.6 ± 0.57 | S | 23.3 ± 0.57 | S | 25.0 ± 1.00 | R | 35.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
OPS 3 | 20.3 ± 0.57 | R | 14.6 ± 0.57 | I | 24.0 ± 1.00 | S | 21.6 ± 0.57 | S | 14.3 ± 0.57 | R | 25.3 ± 0.57 | S | |
aDiameter of inhibition zone (mm), bResponse to the antibiotic (R = Resistant, I = Intermediate, S = Sensitive). Values represent mean of triplicate readings ± SD. |
Antibiotic sensitivity pattern of the endophytic bacterial isolates was determined by disc-diffusion method against six different antibiotics (penicillin G, streptomycin, sulphatriad, tetracycline, ampicillin and chloramphenicol). The bacterial endophytes from leaf lamina, petiole, rhizome and spike tissues of O. reticulatum L. were all sensitive to chloramphenicol. One rhizome endophyte, OPR 2 was sensitive to all 6 antibiotics tested. Most of the isolates were also sensitive to tetracycline and resistant to ampicillin and penicillin G (Table 5).
When grown in tryptophan broth, the endophytic bacterial isolates showed the production of IAA as revealed by the development of pink colour on treatment with Salkowski's reagent (Table 6). Among the 20 isolates, 11 showed IAA production. The concentration of IAA ranged between 5 µg/ml to 39.79 µg/ml. Isolate OPR 7 was the best producer (39.79 µg/ml) followed by OPR 6 (10 µg/ml).
Plant tissue | Bacterial isolate | Growth OD at 540nm | Production of IAA (µg/ml) |
Leaf lamina | OPL 2 | 1.43 ± 0.03 | 6.12 ± 0.02 |
OPL 5 | 1.46 ± 0.01 | 5.00 ± 0.10 | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | 0.49 ± 0.01 | 7.14 ± 0.03 |
OPP 2 | 1.04 ± 0.01 | 7.14 ± 0.05 | |
OPP 4 | 1.45 ± 0.01 | 6.12 ± 0.02 | |
Rhizome | OPR 4 | 1.29 ± 0.01 | 7.14 ± 0.02 |
OPR 5 | 1.97 ± 0.00 | 6.12 ± 0.05 | |
OPR 6 | 1.53 ± 0.01 | 10.00 ± 0.05 | |
OPR 7 | 1.59 ± 0.02 | 39.79 ± 0.01 | |
OPR 8 | 1.42 ± 0.01 | 5.00 ± 0.02 | |
Spike | OPS 1 | 1.34 ± 0.01 | 8.16 ± 0.02 |
*Production of IAA was assessed by Salkowski colorimetric assay at 540 nm. Amount of IAA produced was determined from the standard curve of IAA. Values represent mean of triplicate readings ± SD. |
The ability of the endophytic bacterial isolates to solubilize insoluble phosphate was detected in 9 isolates as revealed by the formation of clear zone surrounding the growth of the isolates on Pikovskaya's medium. Isolates OPR 7 and OPS 3 showed comparatively higher phosphate solubilizing index (Figure 2).
Out of the 20 isolates inoculated in Norris N2-free glucose medium, majority of them could grow in the absence of nitrogen in the medium except OPL 1, OPL 3, OPL 5, OPR 3 and OPS 1. Qualitative siderophore assay showed that the isolates OPL 3 and OPR 4 were good producers of siderophore whereas OPL 4, OPP 1, OPR 1, OPR 7 and OPR 8 were moderate producers (Table 7).
Plant tissue | Bacterial isolate | Growth in N2-free medium | Production of siderophore |
Leaf lamina | OPL 1 | – | – |
OPL 2 | + | – | |
OPL 3 | – | +++ | |
OPL 4 | + | + | |
OPL 5 | – | – | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | + | ++ |
OPP 2 | + | – | |
OPP 3 | + | – | |
OPP 4 | + | – | |
Rhizome | OPR 1 | + | ++ |
OPR 2 | + | – | |
OPR 3 | – | – | |
OPR 4 | + | +++ | |
OPR 5 | + | – | |
OPR 6 | + | – | |
OPR 7 | + | + | |
OPR 8 | + | + | |
Spike | OPS 1 | – | – |
OPS 2 | + | – | |
OPS 3 | + | +++ | |
"+"indicate positive response, "–" indicate negative response. |
Isolate Bacillus OPR 7, the best IAA producing isolate was chosen for time course study of growth and IAA production in tryptophan broth under batch culture. Production of IAA was initiated in the exponential phase of growth and reached its maximum after 96 h of growth during which it produced nearly 40 µg/ml of IAA (Figure 3).
It has been seen in recent years that plant growth promoting endophytes have the ability to colonize the interior tissues of the host plant and further build a beneficial symbiotic association with their host plants to improve host plant growth [21,22]. In this study we isolated a total of 20 morphologically distinguishable endophytic bacteria from different parts of O. reticulatum L. (Figure 1).The colonization frequency was recorded to be highest in the rhizome and the Shannon-Weaver diversity index also indicated the presence of most diverse types of endophytic bacteria in the rhizome of O. reticulatum L. (Table 1). The endophytes so far isolated and characterized were tentatively assigned to the genera Bacillus, Pseudomonas and Staphylococcus (Table 2). Although during the present study, the identity of the bacterial endophytes could not be determined at the species level, which requires an indepth 16S rRNA sequence analysis. Bacillus sp. has been reported as an endophyte of Polygonum cuspidatum [23], tomato [24] and Aquilaria sp. [25]. Similarly, Bacillus sp. and Pseudomonas sp. have been extensively reported to colonize the roots of many crop plants [26] and found to induce the growth in green gram plants [27]. Species of Staphylococcus as endophytes are also not uncommon [28].
Hydrolytic enzymes of endophytes in general appear to be important for the colonization of plant roots [29,30]. Bacterial endophytes of O. reticulatum L. in this study were found to produce a variety of hydrolytic enzymes such as catalase, caseinase, gelatinase, PHB depolymerase, amylase and inulinase (Table 3). The presence of nitrate reductase in some of the isolates suggests that they play a role in the nitrogen cycle, thereby having agricultural and environmental implications. Majority of the isolates could also ferment glucose, sucrose and fructose and were resistant to cell wall inhibiting antibiotics ampicillin and penicillin G (Table 4 and 5). The isolates also possessed multiple plant growth promoting traits such as IAA production, phosphate solubilization, growth in N2-free medium and production of siderophore. More than 50% of the endophytic isolates showed IAA production (in the presence of tryptophan) with isolate Bacillus OPR 7 being the best producer (Table 6). IAA is reported to increase root size and spreading, resulting in greater nutrient absorption from the soil [31]. Reports of IAA production by plant associated bacteria are not uncommon. Pseudomonas stutzeri isolated from Echinacea sp. produces 18.8 μg/ml of IAA [32], Methylobacterium sp. from red and white clover produces 6–13.3 μg/ml IAA [33] and Bacillus thuringiensis produces 1.53–9.71 μg/ml IAA [34].
It is known that improved phosphorous nutrition enhances the overall growth of the plants and help in root development [35]. Nearly 50% of isolates exhibited the phosphate solubilizing activity by forming clear zones (Figure 2). Bacillus sp., Pseudomonas sp., Serratia sp. and Enterobacter sp. are reported to solubilize the insoluble phosphate compounds and assist in plant growth [36,37]. Siderophore production was recorded in 40% of the isolates (Table 7), which are likely to play an important role in the acquisition of nutrients such as iron availability to the plant [38]. Majority of the isolates (15 out of 20 isolates) were able to grow in N2-free medium (Table 7) indicating their ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen. For time course study of growth and IAA production the isolate Bacillus OPR 7 was chosen and the maximum production was observed after 4 days of incubation (Figure 3). Experiments related to exploration of more bacterial traits for growth promotion are required to further strengthen the findings and application in plant growth and development in a sustainable manner.
Endophytic bacterial isolates was found to be associated with leaf lamina, petiole, spike and rhizome of Ophioglossum reticulatum L. The endophytes produced several hydrolytic enzymes of commercial importance and also possessed plant growth promoting traits. To our knowledge this is the first report addressing the exploration of the diversity of the endophytic bacteria from O. reticulatum L. and their evaluation of plant growth promoting traits. These potent endophytic bacteria, either singly or in combination could be developed as an eco-friendly biofertilizer for growth and development of many important plant species including O. reticulatum L.
Authors duly acknowledge the support received from Dr. D. Lama, St. Josephs College, Darjeeling in collecting and identifying the plant material. This work was partially supported from the grant received by one of us (RD) from the Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi (Sanction No. DST-INSPIRE Fellowship/REL3/2013/2).
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] |
Ryan RP, Germaine K, Franks A, et al. (2008) Bacterial endophytes: recent developments and applications. FEMS Microbiol Lett 278: 1–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2007.00918.x
![]() |
[2] |
Lodewyckx C, Mergeay M, Vangronsveld J, et al. (2002) Isolation, characterization, and identification of bacteria associated with the zinc hyperaccumulator Thlaspi caerulescens subsp. calaminaria. Int J Phytorem 4: 101–115. doi: 10.1080/15226510208500076
![]() |
[3] |
Kevin VJ (2003) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. Plant Soil 255: 571–586. doi: 10.1023/A:1026037216893
![]() |
[4] | Bhattacharyya PN, Jha DK (2011) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): emergence in agriculture. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 28: 1327–1350. |
[5] | Fernandes TP, Nietsche S, Costa MR, et al. (2013) Potential use of endophytic bacteria to promote the plant growth of micropropagated banana cultivar Prata Ana. Afr J Biotechnol 12: 4915–4919. |
[6] |
Zhao L, Xu Y, Lai XH, et al. (2015) Screening and characterization of endophytic Bacillus and Paenibacillus strains from medicinal plant Lonicera japonica for use as potential plant growth promoters. Braz J Microbiol 46: 977–989. doi: 10.1590/S1517-838246420140024
![]() |
[7] |
Ji SH, Gururani MA, Chun SC (2014) Isolation and characterization of plant growth promoting endophytic diazotrophic bacteria from Korean rice cultivars. Microbiol Res 169: 83–98. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2013.06.003
![]() |
[8] | Kuklinsky-Sobral J, Araujo WL, Mendes R, et al. (2004) Isolation and characterization of soybean-associated bacteria and their potential for plant growth promotion. Environ Microbiol 6: 1244–1251. |
[9] |
Araujo WL, Marcon J, Maccheroni W, et al. (2002) Diversity of endophytic bacterial populations and their interaction with Xylella fastidiosa in citrus plants. Appl Environ Microbiol 68: 4906–4914. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.10.4906-4914.2002
![]() |
[10] | Hinton DM, Bacon CW (1995) Enterobacter cloacae is an endophytic symbiont of corn. Mycopathologia 129: 117–125. |
[11] |
Asis CA, Adachi K (2004) Isolation of endophytic diazotroph Pantoea agglomerans and nondiazotroph Enterobacter asburiae from sweet potato stem in Japan. Lett Appl Microbiol 38: 19–23. doi: 10.1046/j.1472-765X.2003.01434.x
![]() |
[12] | El-Deeb B, Bazaid S, Gherbawy Y, et al. (2011) Characterization of endophytic bacteria associated with rose plant (Rosa damascena trigintipeta) during flowering stage and their plant growth promoting traits. J Plant Interact 7: 248–253. |
[13] |
Ahemad M, Kibret M (2014) Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: current perspective. J King Saud Univ Sci 26: 1–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jksus.2013.05.001
![]() |
[14] | Luo SL, Xu TY, Chen L, et al. (2011) Endophyte-assisted promotion of biomass production and metal-uptake of energy crop sweet sorghum by plant-growth promoting endophyte Bacillus sp. SLS18. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 93: 1745–1753. |
[15] | Taghavi S, Garafola C, Monchy S, et al. (2008) Genome survey and characterization of endophytic bacteria exhibiting a beneficial effect on growth and development of poplar trees. Appl Environ Microbiol 75: 748–757. |
[16] |
Ghimire SR, Charlton ND, Craven KD (2009) The mycorrhizal fungus, Sebacina vermifera, enhances seed germination and biomass production in switchgrass (Panicum viratum L.). Bioenerg Res 2: 51–58. doi: 10.1007/s12155-009-9033-2
![]() |
[17] | Kim S, Lowman S, Hou G, et al. (2012) Growth promotion and colonization of switchgrass (Panicum viratum) cv. Alamo by endophyte Burkholderia phytofirmans strain PsJN. Biotechnol Biofuels 5: 37. |
[18] | Nair LN, Mahabale TS (1975) Mycorrhiza in Ophioglossaceae: morphology of endophytes in vivo. Geophytology 5: 16–23. |
[19] |
Alexander DB, Zuberer DA (1991) Use of chrome azurol S reagents to evaluate siderophore production by rhizosphere bacteria. Biol Fert Soils 12: 39–45. doi: 10.1007/BF00369386
![]() |
[20] | Buchanan RE, Gibbons NE (1975) Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, 8 Eds., Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. |
[21] |
Mayak S, Tirosh T, Glick BR (2004) Plant-growth promoting bacteria that confer resistance in tomato plants to salt stress. Plant Physiol Biochem 42: 565–572. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2004.05.009
![]() |
[22] | Saravanakumar D, Samiyappan R (2007) ACC deaminase from Pseudomonas fluorescens mediated saline resistance in groundnut (Arachis hypogea) plants. J Appl Microbiol 102: 1283–1292. |
[23] | Figueiredo JE, Gomes EA, Guimaraes CT, et al. (2009) Molecular analysis of endophytic bacteria from the genus Bacillus isolated from tropical maize (Zea mays L.). Braz J Microbiol 40: 522–534. |
[24] |
Feng H, Li Y, Liu Q (2013) Endophytic bacterial communities in tomato plants with differential resistance to Ralstonia solanacearum. Afr J Microbiol Res 7: 1311–1318. doi: 10.5897/AJMR12.375
![]() |
[25] |
Krishnan P, Bhat R, Kush A, et al. (2012) Isolation and functional characterization of bacterial endophytes from Carica papaya fruits. J Appl Microbiol 113: 308–317. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05340.x
![]() |
[26] | Kumar A, Prakash A, Johri BN (2011) Bacillus as PGPR in crop ecosystem, In: Maheshwari, DK, Bacteria in agrobiology: crop ecosystem, 1 Eds., Springer, Heidalberg, 37–59. |
[27] |
Saravanakumar D, Kavino M, Raguchander T, et al. (2011) Plant growth promoting bacteria enhances water stress resistance in green gram plants. Acta Physiol Plant 33: 203–209. doi: 10.1007/s11738-010-0539-1
![]() |
[28] | Surette M, Sturz A, Lada R, et al. (2003) Bacterial endophytes in processing carrots (Daucus carota L. var. sativus): their localization, population density, biodiversity and their effects on plant growth. Plant Soil 253: 381–390. |
[29] |
Quadt-Hallmann A, Benhamou AN, Kleopper JW (1997) Bacterial endophytes in cotton: mechanisms of entering the plant. Can J Microbiol 43: 577–582. doi: 10.1139/m97-081
![]() |
[30] | Sakiyama CCH, Paula EM, Pereira PC, et al. (2001) Characterization of pectin lyase produced by an endophytic strain isolated from coffee cherries. Lett Appl Microbiol 33: 117–121. |
[31] |
Li JH, Wang ET, Chen WF, et al. (2008) Genetic diversity and potential for promotion of plant growth detected in nodule endophytic bacteria of soybean grown in Heilongjiang province of China. Soil Biol Biochem 40: 238–246. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.08.014
![]() |
[32] |
Lata H, Lil XC, Silva B, et al. (2006) Identification of IAA producing endophytic bacteria from micropropagated Echinacea plants using 16S rRNA sequencing. Plant Cell Tiss Org 85: 353–359. doi: 10.1007/s11240-006-9087-1
![]() |
[33] |
Omer ZS, Tombolini R, Broberg A, et al. (2004) Indole-3-acetic acid production by pink-pigmented facultative methylotrophic bacteria. Plant Growth Regul 43: 93–96. doi: 10.1023/B:GROW.0000038360.09079.ad
![]() |
[34] |
Raddadi N, Cherif A, Boudabous A, et al. (2008) Screening of plant growth promoting traits of Bacillus thuringiensis. Ann Microbiol 58: 47–52. doi: 10.1007/BF03179444
![]() |
[35] |
Jones DL, Darrah PR (1994) Role of root derived organic acids in the mobilization of nutrients from the rhizosphere. Plant Soil 166: 247–257. doi: 10.1007/BF00008338
![]() |
[36] |
Frey-Klett P, Chavatte M, Clausse ML, et al. (2004) Ecto-mycorrhizal symbiosis affects functional diversity of rhizosphere fluorescent pseudomonads. New Phytol 165: 317–328. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01212.x
![]() |
[37] |
Hameeda B, Harini G, Rupela OP, et al. (2008) Growth promotion of maize by phosphate-solubilizing bacteria isolated from composts and macrofauna. Microbiol Res 163: 234–242. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2006.05.009
![]() |
[38] |
Glick BR (2003) Phytoremediation: synergistic use of plants and bacteria to clean up the environment. Biotechnol Adv 21: 383–393. doi: 10.1016/S0734-9750(03)00055-7
![]() |
1. | Pramod Kumar Pandey, Siddhartha Singh, Mayanglambam Chandrakumar Singh, Amit Kumar Singh, Sudheer Kumar Yadav, Ajai Kumar Pandey, Punabati Heisnam, 2018, Chapter 15, 978-3-319-96970-1, 393, 10.1007/978-3-319-96971-8_15 | |
2. | Mariem Samet, Imen Ghazala, Fatma Karray, Cyrine Abid, Nour Chiab, Oumèma Nouri-Ellouz, Sami Sayadi, Radhia Gargouri-Bouzid, Isolation of bacterial strains from compost teas and screening of their PGPR properties on potato plants, 2022, 29, 0944-1344, 75365, 10.1007/s11356-022-21046-8 | |
3. | Yuhu Wang, Qianqian Zhao, Zhenqi Sun, Yahui Li, Hongtao He, Yuanyu Zhang, Xiangdong Yang, Dong Wang, Baozhu Dong, Hongyou Zhou, Mingmin Zhao, Hongli Zheng, Whole-genome analysis revealed the growth-promoting mechanism of endophytic bacterial strain Q2H1 in potato plants, 2022, 13, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1035901 | |
4. | Valerie F. Masocha, Hongmei Liu, Pingshan Zhan, Kaikai Wang, Ao Zeng, Sike Shen, Harald Schneider, Bacterial Microbiome in the Phyllo-Endosphere of Highly Specialized Rock Spleenwort, 2022, 13, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2022.891155 | |
5. | Taghreed Alsufyani, Najwa Al-Otaibi, Noura J. Alotaibi, Nour Houda M’sakni, Eman M. Alghamdi, GC Analysis, Anticancer, and Antibacterial Activities of Secondary Bioactive Compounds from Endosymbiotic Bacteria of Pomegranate Aphid and Its Predator and Protector, 2023, 28, 1420-3049, 4255, 10.3390/molecules28104255 | |
6. | Mary Hannah Rose Padayao, Francis Reuben Paul Padayao, Jenny Marie Patalinghug, Gem Stephen Raña, Jonie Yee, Paul John Geraldino, Norman Quilantang, Antimicrobial and quorum sensing inhibitory activity of epiphytic bacteria isolated from the red alga Halymenia durvillei , 2023, 5, 2516-8290, 10.1099/acmi.0.000563.v4 | |
7. | Manzari Kushwaha, Anuradha Mishra, Shiv Shankar, Divya Goel, Sarita Joshi, Siya Ram, 2024, 9780443152917, 333, 10.1016/B978-0-443-15291-7.00016-X | |
8. | Iqra Bashir, Aadil Farooq War, Iflah Rafiq, Zafar A. Reshi, Irfan Rashid, Yogesh S. Shouche, Uncovering the Secret Weapons of an Invasive Plant: The Endophytic Microbes of Anthemis cotula, 2024, 24058440, e29778, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29778 | |
9. | Yasaswinee Rout, Soumya Sephalika Swain, Madhusmita Ghana, Debabrata Dash, Shubhransu Nayak, Perspectives of pteridophytes microbiome for bioremediation in agricultural applications, 2024, 19, 2391-5412, 10.1515/biol-2022-0870 | |
10. | Silju Juby, P. Soumya, K. Jayachandran, E. K. Radhakrishnan, Morphological, Metabolomic and Genomic Evidences on Drought Stress Protective Functioning of the Endophyte Bacillus safensis Ni7, 2024, 81, 0343-8651, 10.1007/s00284-024-03720-x | |
11. | Ihtisham Ul Haq, Kashif Rahim, Galal Yahya, Bushra Ijaz, Sajida Maryam, Najeeba Parre Paker, Eco-smart biocontrol strategies utilizing potent microbes for sustainable management of phytopathogenic diseases, 2024, 44, 2215017X, e00859, 10.1016/j.btre.2024.e00859 | |
12. | Abdul Manan Yousaf, Sehrish Imran, Yamin Bibi, Muhammad Hasnain, Muhammad Imran Yousaf, Abdul Qayyum, A comprehensive review on ethno-pharmacological and phytochemical properties of selected species of genus Ophioglossum, 2024, 175, 02546299, 538, 10.1016/j.sajb.2024.10.040 | |
13. | Soumya Sephalika Swain, Shubhransu Nayak, Sushma Mishra, Madhusmita Ghana, Debabrata Dash, Exploring the plant growth promoting attributes of pteridophyte-associated microbiome for agricultural sustainability, 2025, 0971-5894, 10.1007/s12298-025-01553-x |
Parameters | Plant tissue | Total | |||
Leaf lamina | Petiole | Rhizome | Spike | ||
Number of samples used | 202 | 60 | 179 | 56 | 497 |
Samples yielding endophytic isolates | 124 | 21 | 157 | 33 | 335 |
Number of endophytic isolates | 5 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 20 |
Colonizing frequency (%)a | 61.38 | 35.00 | 87.70 | 58.92 | 67.40 |
Isolation rateb | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.04 |
Shannon-Weaver diversity indexc | 1.01 | 1.05 | 1.54 | 0.98 | 1.08 |
aColonization frequency was calculated as the total number of plant samples infected by bacteria divided by the total number of samples incubated. bIsolation rate was calculated as the number of bacterial isolates obtained from plant samples divided by the total number of samples incubated. cShannon-Weaver diversity index was calculated as: H = – Ʃ Pi X ln Pi, where, Pi is the proportion of individuals that species "i" contributes to the total. |
Plant part | Isolate | Colony morphology | Cell shape | Size, µm | Gram nature | Endospore formation | Motility |
Leaf lamina | OPL 1 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, solitary or in chains of 4–6 cells | 3.53–5.05 × 0.80–1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + |
OPL 2 | Cream, smooth, regular | Rods, mostly solitary, rarely in pairs | 4.04–5.05 × 1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPL 3 | Yellow, smooth, irregular | Rods, solitary, often in chains of 4–6 cells | 2.52–5.05 × 1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPL 4 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly in chains of 6–7 cells | 3.03–4.04 × 1.01–1.2 | Gram + ve | + | - | |
OPL 5 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly solitary or in pairs | 3.03–4.04 × 1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly solitary or in pairs | 3.03–5.05 × 0.20 | Gram – ve | – | + |
OPP 2 | White, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly in pairs, sometimes solitary | 3.03–5.05 × 0.80–1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPP 3 | Yellow, smooth, regular | Rods, mostly in groups, sometimes solitary | 0.50–1.51 × 0.25–0.50 | Gram – ve | – | + | |
OPP 4 | White, smooth, regular | Cocci, irregular groups of many cells | 0.505–0.808 dia | Gram + ve | – | – | |
Rhizome | OPR 1 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly in pairs, sometimes solitary | 2.02–4.04 × 0.50 | Gram – ve | – | + |
OPR 2 | Cream, smooth, regular | Rods, mostly solitary | 1.51–2.02 × 0.50 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPR 3 | White, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly in chains of 3–7 cells | 4.04–7.07 × 1.01–1.11 | Gram – ve | – | + | |
OPR 4 | Cream, rough, irregular | Rods, mostly in pairs, rarely solitary | 3.03–5.05 × 0.50–1.01 | Gram – ve | – | + | |
OPR 5 | Cream, smooth, regular | Rods, mostly solitary | 3.03–4.04 × 0.80 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPR 6 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly solitary, sometimes in pairs | 2.52–4.04 × 0.50–1.01 | Gram – ve | – | + | |
OPR 7 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly solitary | 3.03–4.04 × 0.80 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPR 8 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly solitary, sometimes in pairs | 4.04–5.05 × 1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
Spike | OPS 1 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly in pairs rarely in chains | 5.05–6.06 × 1.01–1.51 | Gram + ve | + | – |
OPS 2 | Yellow, smooth, regular | Rods, solitary or in pairs | 2.02–4.04 × 0.50 | Gram – ve | – | + | |
OPS 3 | Brown, smooth, regular | Rods, in chains of 2–4 cells, or solitary | 3.03–5.05 × 1.01–1.51 | Gram + ve | + | + |
Plant part | Isolate | Production of enzyme | |||||||||
Catalase | Amylase | Caseinase | Gelatinase | Nitrate reductase | Cellulase | Lipase | Inulinase | Pectinase | PHB depolymerase | ||
Leaf lamina | OPL 1 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – |
OPL 2 | + | + | + | – | – | – | – | + | + | – | |
OPL 3 | + | – | + | + | – | – | – | – | – | + | |
OPL 4 | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | |
OPL 5 | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | – | – | + | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | + |
OPP 2 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | |
OPP 3 | + | – | + | – | + | + | – | + | + | + | |
OPP 4 | + | – | + | + | – | + | – | + | – | + | |
Rhizome | OPR 1 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + |
OPR 2 | + | + | + | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | |
OPR 3 | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | + | |
OPR 4 | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | – | – | – | |
OPR 5 | + | – | + | + | – | + | – | – | – | – | |
OPR 6 | + | – | – | + | – | + | – | – | – | – | |
OPR 7 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | + | |
OPR 8 | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | |
Spike | OPS 1 | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | + | – |
OPS 2 | + | – | + | + | – | + | – | – | – | – | |
OPS 3 | + | – | + | + | – | – | + | + | – | + | |
"+" indicate positive response, "–" indicate negative response. |
Plant tissue | Bacterial isolate | Glucose | Sucrose | Fructose | Maltose | Lactose | |||||
U | F | U | F | U | F | U | F | U | F | ||
Leaf lamina | OPL 1 | + | – | + | – | + | – | + | + | + | – |
OPL 2 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | |
OPL 3 | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | – | + | – | |
OPL 4 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | |
OPL 5 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
OPP 2 | + | + | + | – | + | – | – | – | + | + | |
OPP 3 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | – | |
OPP 4 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
Rhizome | OPR 1 | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | + |
OPR 2 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | – | |
OPR 3 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
OPR 4 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | |
OPR 5 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | |
OPR 6 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | |
OPR 7 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
OPR 8 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | |
Spike | OPS 1 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | + |
OPS 2 | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | |
OPS 3 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | – | |
"+" indicate positive response, "–" indicate negative response. "U" indicate utilization, "F" indicate fermentation. *Fermentation of sugars was screened in Davis and Mingiolis medium supplemented with 0.1% bromothymol blue and 1% sugar. |
Plant part | Bacterial isolate | Antibiotics | |||||||||||
Penicillin G =(1 unit) | Streptomycin (10 µg) | Sulphatriad (300 µg) | Tetracycline (25 µg) | Ampicillin (10 µg) | Chloramphenicol (25 µg) | ||||||||
Diaa (mm) | Rsb | Diaa (mm) | Rsb | Diaa (mm) | Rsb | Diaa (mm) | Rsb | Diaa (mm) | Rsb | Diaa (mm) | Rsb | ||
Leaf lamina | OPL 1 | 10.3 ± 0.57 | R | 17.0 ± 1.00 | S | 18.0 ± 1.00 | S | 16.5 ± 0.50 | I | 9.3 ± 0.57 | R | 24.8 ± 0.76 | S |
OPL 2 | 13.6 ± 0.57 | R | 22.0 ± 1.00 | S | 25.6 ± 0.57 | S | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | 13.6 ± 0.57 | R | 26.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
OPL 3 | 25.0 ± 1.00 | R | 21.3 ± 0.57 | S | 27.3 ± 0.57 | S | 24.3 ± 0.57 | S | 20.0 ± 1.00 | R | 26.3 ± 0.57 | S | |
OPL 4 | 10.6 ± 0.57 | R | 20.6 ± 0.57 | S | 25.0 ± 1.00 | S | 21.6 ± 0.57 | S | – | R | 26. ± 0.57 | S | |
OPL 5 | 27.3 ± 0.57 | I | 27.5 ± 0.50 | S | 22.5 ± 0.50 | S | 25.0 ± 1.00 | S | 19.6 ± 0.57 | R | 23.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | 9.3 ± 0.57 | R | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | 32.3 ± 0.57 | S | 20.5 ± 0.50 | S | 12.3 ± 0.57 | R | 22.8 ± 0.76 | S |
OPP 2 | – | R | 13.3 ± 0.57 | I | – | R | 19.6 ± 0.57 | S | – | R | 27.6 ± 0.57 | S | |
OPP 3 | 9.6 ± 0.57 | R | 13.3 ± 0.57 | I | – | R | 27.3 ± 0.57 | S | 8.3 ± 0.57 | R | 28.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
OPP 4 | 30.0 ± 1.00 | S | 21.6 ± 0.57 | S | – | R | 22.8 ± 0.76 | S | 7.3 ± 0.57 | R | 29.3 ± 0.57 | S | |
Rhizome | OPR 1 | – | R | 23.0 ± 1.00 | S | 23.5 ± 0.50 | S | 21.3 ± 0.57 | S | – | R | 27.8 ± 0.76 | S |
OPR 2 | 40.8 ± 0.76 | S | 32.3 ± 0.57 | S | 36.3 ± 0.57 | S | 26.0 ± 1.00 | S | 37.6 ± 0.57 | S | 28.3 ± 0.57 | S | |
OPR 3 | 21.0 ± 1.00 | R | 22.6 ± 0.57 | S | – | R | – | R | 8.3 ± 0.57 | R | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
OPR 4 | – | R | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | – | R | 13.3 ± 0.57 | R | – | R | 21.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
OPR 5 | 25.0 ± 1.00 | R | 22.8 ± 0.76 | S | 10.3 ± 0.57 | R | 21.0 ± 1.00 | S | 20.6 ± 0.57 | R | 27.6 ± 0.57 | S | |
OPR 6 | – | R | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | 19.8 ± 0.76 | S | 24.3 ± 0.57 | S | 30.0 ± 1.00 | S | 25.3 ± 0.57 | S | |
OPR 7 | 19.3 ± 0.57 | R | 9.5 ± 0.50 | R | 22.0 ± 1.00 | S | 23.8 ± 0.76 | S | 18.3 ± 0.57 | R | 31 3 ± 0.50 | S | |
OPR 8 | – | R | 13.3 ± 0.57 | I | – | R | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | 7.6 ± 0.57 | R | 25.5 ± 0.50 | S | |
Spike | OPS 1 | – | R | 13.0 ± 1.00 | I | 22.3 ± 0.57 | S | 20.5 ± 0.50 | S | 8.6 ± 0.57 | R | 25.0 ± 1.00 | S |
OPS 2 | 31.8 ± 0.76 | S | 24.0 ± 0.50 | S | 29.6 ± 0.57 | S | 23.3 ± 0.57 | S | 25.0 ± 1.00 | R | 35.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
OPS 3 | 20.3 ± 0.57 | R | 14.6 ± 0.57 | I | 24.0 ± 1.00 | S | 21.6 ± 0.57 | S | 14.3 ± 0.57 | R | 25.3 ± 0.57 | S | |
aDiameter of inhibition zone (mm), bResponse to the antibiotic (R = Resistant, I = Intermediate, S = Sensitive). Values represent mean of triplicate readings ± SD. |
Plant tissue | Bacterial isolate | Growth OD at 540nm | Production of IAA (µg/ml) |
Leaf lamina | OPL 2 | 1.43 ± 0.03 | 6.12 ± 0.02 |
OPL 5 | 1.46 ± 0.01 | 5.00 ± 0.10 | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | 0.49 ± 0.01 | 7.14 ± 0.03 |
OPP 2 | 1.04 ± 0.01 | 7.14 ± 0.05 | |
OPP 4 | 1.45 ± 0.01 | 6.12 ± 0.02 | |
Rhizome | OPR 4 | 1.29 ± 0.01 | 7.14 ± 0.02 |
OPR 5 | 1.97 ± 0.00 | 6.12 ± 0.05 | |
OPR 6 | 1.53 ± 0.01 | 10.00 ± 0.05 | |
OPR 7 | 1.59 ± 0.02 | 39.79 ± 0.01 | |
OPR 8 | 1.42 ± 0.01 | 5.00 ± 0.02 | |
Spike | OPS 1 | 1.34 ± 0.01 | 8.16 ± 0.02 |
*Production of IAA was assessed by Salkowski colorimetric assay at 540 nm. Amount of IAA produced was determined from the standard curve of IAA. Values represent mean of triplicate readings ± SD. |
Plant tissue | Bacterial isolate | Growth in N2-free medium | Production of siderophore |
Leaf lamina | OPL 1 | – | – |
OPL 2 | + | – | |
OPL 3 | – | +++ | |
OPL 4 | + | + | |
OPL 5 | – | – | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | + | ++ |
OPP 2 | + | – | |
OPP 3 | + | – | |
OPP 4 | + | – | |
Rhizome | OPR 1 | + | ++ |
OPR 2 | + | – | |
OPR 3 | – | – | |
OPR 4 | + | +++ | |
OPR 5 | + | – | |
OPR 6 | + | – | |
OPR 7 | + | + | |
OPR 8 | + | + | |
Spike | OPS 1 | – | – |
OPS 2 | + | – | |
OPS 3 | + | +++ | |
"+"indicate positive response, "–" indicate negative response. |
Parameters | Plant tissue | Total | |||
Leaf lamina | Petiole | Rhizome | Spike | ||
Number of samples used | 202 | 60 | 179 | 56 | 497 |
Samples yielding endophytic isolates | 124 | 21 | 157 | 33 | 335 |
Number of endophytic isolates | 5 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 20 |
Colonizing frequency (%)a | 61.38 | 35.00 | 87.70 | 58.92 | 67.40 |
Isolation rateb | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.04 |
Shannon-Weaver diversity indexc | 1.01 | 1.05 | 1.54 | 0.98 | 1.08 |
aColonization frequency was calculated as the total number of plant samples infected by bacteria divided by the total number of samples incubated. bIsolation rate was calculated as the number of bacterial isolates obtained from plant samples divided by the total number of samples incubated. cShannon-Weaver diversity index was calculated as: H = – Ʃ Pi X ln Pi, where, Pi is the proportion of individuals that species "i" contributes to the total. |
Plant part | Isolate | Colony morphology | Cell shape | Size, µm | Gram nature | Endospore formation | Motility |
Leaf lamina | OPL 1 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, solitary or in chains of 4–6 cells | 3.53–5.05 × 0.80–1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + |
OPL 2 | Cream, smooth, regular | Rods, mostly solitary, rarely in pairs | 4.04–5.05 × 1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPL 3 | Yellow, smooth, irregular | Rods, solitary, often in chains of 4–6 cells | 2.52–5.05 × 1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPL 4 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly in chains of 6–7 cells | 3.03–4.04 × 1.01–1.2 | Gram + ve | + | - | |
OPL 5 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly solitary or in pairs | 3.03–4.04 × 1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly solitary or in pairs | 3.03–5.05 × 0.20 | Gram – ve | – | + |
OPP 2 | White, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly in pairs, sometimes solitary | 3.03–5.05 × 0.80–1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPP 3 | Yellow, smooth, regular | Rods, mostly in groups, sometimes solitary | 0.50–1.51 × 0.25–0.50 | Gram – ve | – | + | |
OPP 4 | White, smooth, regular | Cocci, irregular groups of many cells | 0.505–0.808 dia | Gram + ve | – | – | |
Rhizome | OPR 1 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly in pairs, sometimes solitary | 2.02–4.04 × 0.50 | Gram – ve | – | + |
OPR 2 | Cream, smooth, regular | Rods, mostly solitary | 1.51–2.02 × 0.50 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPR 3 | White, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly in chains of 3–7 cells | 4.04–7.07 × 1.01–1.11 | Gram – ve | – | + | |
OPR 4 | Cream, rough, irregular | Rods, mostly in pairs, rarely solitary | 3.03–5.05 × 0.50–1.01 | Gram – ve | – | + | |
OPR 5 | Cream, smooth, regular | Rods, mostly solitary | 3.03–4.04 × 0.80 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPR 6 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly solitary, sometimes in pairs | 2.52–4.04 × 0.50–1.01 | Gram – ve | – | + | |
OPR 7 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly solitary | 3.03–4.04 × 0.80 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
OPR 8 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly solitary, sometimes in pairs | 4.04–5.05 × 1.01 | Gram + ve | + | + | |
Spike | OPS 1 | Cream, smooth, irregular | Rods, mostly in pairs rarely in chains | 5.05–6.06 × 1.01–1.51 | Gram + ve | + | – |
OPS 2 | Yellow, smooth, regular | Rods, solitary or in pairs | 2.02–4.04 × 0.50 | Gram – ve | – | + | |
OPS 3 | Brown, smooth, regular | Rods, in chains of 2–4 cells, or solitary | 3.03–5.05 × 1.01–1.51 | Gram + ve | + | + |
Plant part | Isolate | Production of enzyme | |||||||||
Catalase | Amylase | Caseinase | Gelatinase | Nitrate reductase | Cellulase | Lipase | Inulinase | Pectinase | PHB depolymerase | ||
Leaf lamina | OPL 1 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – |
OPL 2 | + | + | + | – | – | – | – | + | + | – | |
OPL 3 | + | – | + | + | – | – | – | – | – | + | |
OPL 4 | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | |
OPL 5 | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | – | – | + | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | + |
OPP 2 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | |
OPP 3 | + | – | + | – | + | + | – | + | + | + | |
OPP 4 | + | – | + | + | – | + | – | + | – | + | |
Rhizome | OPR 1 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + |
OPR 2 | + | + | + | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | |
OPR 3 | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | + | |
OPR 4 | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | – | – | – | |
OPR 5 | + | – | + | + | – | + | – | – | – | – | |
OPR 6 | + | – | – | + | – | + | – | – | – | – | |
OPR 7 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | + | |
OPR 8 | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | |
Spike | OPS 1 | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | + | – |
OPS 2 | + | – | + | + | – | + | – | – | – | – | |
OPS 3 | + | – | + | + | – | – | + | + | – | + | |
"+" indicate positive response, "–" indicate negative response. |
Plant tissue | Bacterial isolate | Glucose | Sucrose | Fructose | Maltose | Lactose | |||||
U | F | U | F | U | F | U | F | U | F | ||
Leaf lamina | OPL 1 | + | – | + | – | + | – | + | + | + | – |
OPL 2 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | |
OPL 3 | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | – | + | – | |
OPL 4 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | |
OPL 5 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
OPP 2 | + | + | + | – | + | – | – | – | + | + | |
OPP 3 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | – | |
OPP 4 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
Rhizome | OPR 1 | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | + |
OPR 2 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | – | |
OPR 3 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
OPR 4 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | |
OPR 5 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | |
OPR 6 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | |
OPR 7 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
OPR 8 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | |
Spike | OPS 1 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | + |
OPS 2 | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | |
OPS 3 | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | – | |
"+" indicate positive response, "–" indicate negative response. "U" indicate utilization, "F" indicate fermentation. *Fermentation of sugars was screened in Davis and Mingiolis medium supplemented with 0.1% bromothymol blue and 1% sugar. |
Plant part | Bacterial isolate | Antibiotics | |||||||||||
Penicillin G =(1 unit) | Streptomycin (10 µg) | Sulphatriad (300 µg) | Tetracycline (25 µg) | Ampicillin (10 µg) | Chloramphenicol (25 µg) | ||||||||
Diaa (mm) | Rsb | Diaa (mm) | Rsb | Diaa (mm) | Rsb | Diaa (mm) | Rsb | Diaa (mm) | Rsb | Diaa (mm) | Rsb | ||
Leaf lamina | OPL 1 | 10.3 ± 0.57 | R | 17.0 ± 1.00 | S | 18.0 ± 1.00 | S | 16.5 ± 0.50 | I | 9.3 ± 0.57 | R | 24.8 ± 0.76 | S |
OPL 2 | 13.6 ± 0.57 | R | 22.0 ± 1.00 | S | 25.6 ± 0.57 | S | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | 13.6 ± 0.57 | R | 26.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
OPL 3 | 25.0 ± 1.00 | R | 21.3 ± 0.57 | S | 27.3 ± 0.57 | S | 24.3 ± 0.57 | S | 20.0 ± 1.00 | R | 26.3 ± 0.57 | S | |
OPL 4 | 10.6 ± 0.57 | R | 20.6 ± 0.57 | S | 25.0 ± 1.00 | S | 21.6 ± 0.57 | S | – | R | 26. ± 0.57 | S | |
OPL 5 | 27.3 ± 0.57 | I | 27.5 ± 0.50 | S | 22.5 ± 0.50 | S | 25.0 ± 1.00 | S | 19.6 ± 0.57 | R | 23.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | 9.3 ± 0.57 | R | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | 32.3 ± 0.57 | S | 20.5 ± 0.50 | S | 12.3 ± 0.57 | R | 22.8 ± 0.76 | S |
OPP 2 | – | R | 13.3 ± 0.57 | I | – | R | 19.6 ± 0.57 | S | – | R | 27.6 ± 0.57 | S | |
OPP 3 | 9.6 ± 0.57 | R | 13.3 ± 0.57 | I | – | R | 27.3 ± 0.57 | S | 8.3 ± 0.57 | R | 28.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
OPP 4 | 30.0 ± 1.00 | S | 21.6 ± 0.57 | S | – | R | 22.8 ± 0.76 | S | 7.3 ± 0.57 | R | 29.3 ± 0.57 | S | |
Rhizome | OPR 1 | – | R | 23.0 ± 1.00 | S | 23.5 ± 0.50 | S | 21.3 ± 0.57 | S | – | R | 27.8 ± 0.76 | S |
OPR 2 | 40.8 ± 0.76 | S | 32.3 ± 0.57 | S | 36.3 ± 0.57 | S | 26.0 ± 1.00 | S | 37.6 ± 0.57 | S | 28.3 ± 0.57 | S | |
OPR 3 | 21.0 ± 1.00 | R | 22.6 ± 0.57 | S | – | R | – | R | 8.3 ± 0.57 | R | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
OPR 4 | – | R | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | – | R | 13.3 ± 0.57 | R | – | R | 21.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
OPR 5 | 25.0 ± 1.00 | R | 22.8 ± 0.76 | S | 10.3 ± 0.57 | R | 21.0 ± 1.00 | S | 20.6 ± 0.57 | R | 27.6 ± 0.57 | S | |
OPR 6 | – | R | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | 19.8 ± 0.76 | S | 24.3 ± 0.57 | S | 30.0 ± 1.00 | S | 25.3 ± 0.57 | S | |
OPR 7 | 19.3 ± 0.57 | R | 9.5 ± 0.50 | R | 22.0 ± 1.00 | S | 23.8 ± 0.76 | S | 18.3 ± 0.57 | R | 31 3 ± 0.50 | S | |
OPR 8 | – | R | 13.3 ± 0.57 | I | – | R | 20.0 ± 1.00 | S | 7.6 ± 0.57 | R | 25.5 ± 0.50 | S | |
Spike | OPS 1 | – | R | 13.0 ± 1.00 | I | 22.3 ± 0.57 | S | 20.5 ± 0.50 | S | 8.6 ± 0.57 | R | 25.0 ± 1.00 | S |
OPS 2 | 31.8 ± 0.76 | S | 24.0 ± 0.50 | S | 29.6 ± 0.57 | S | 23.3 ± 0.57 | S | 25.0 ± 1.00 | R | 35.0 ± 1.00 | S | |
OPS 3 | 20.3 ± 0.57 | R | 14.6 ± 0.57 | I | 24.0 ± 1.00 | S | 21.6 ± 0.57 | S | 14.3 ± 0.57 | R | 25.3 ± 0.57 | S | |
aDiameter of inhibition zone (mm), bResponse to the antibiotic (R = Resistant, I = Intermediate, S = Sensitive). Values represent mean of triplicate readings ± SD. |
Plant tissue | Bacterial isolate | Growth OD at 540nm | Production of IAA (µg/ml) |
Leaf lamina | OPL 2 | 1.43 ± 0.03 | 6.12 ± 0.02 |
OPL 5 | 1.46 ± 0.01 | 5.00 ± 0.10 | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | 0.49 ± 0.01 | 7.14 ± 0.03 |
OPP 2 | 1.04 ± 0.01 | 7.14 ± 0.05 | |
OPP 4 | 1.45 ± 0.01 | 6.12 ± 0.02 | |
Rhizome | OPR 4 | 1.29 ± 0.01 | 7.14 ± 0.02 |
OPR 5 | 1.97 ± 0.00 | 6.12 ± 0.05 | |
OPR 6 | 1.53 ± 0.01 | 10.00 ± 0.05 | |
OPR 7 | 1.59 ± 0.02 | 39.79 ± 0.01 | |
OPR 8 | 1.42 ± 0.01 | 5.00 ± 0.02 | |
Spike | OPS 1 | 1.34 ± 0.01 | 8.16 ± 0.02 |
*Production of IAA was assessed by Salkowski colorimetric assay at 540 nm. Amount of IAA produced was determined from the standard curve of IAA. Values represent mean of triplicate readings ± SD. |
Plant tissue | Bacterial isolate | Growth in N2-free medium | Production of siderophore |
Leaf lamina | OPL 1 | – | – |
OPL 2 | + | – | |
OPL 3 | – | +++ | |
OPL 4 | + | + | |
OPL 5 | – | – | |
Petiole | OPP 1 | + | ++ |
OPP 2 | + | – | |
OPP 3 | + | – | |
OPP 4 | + | – | |
Rhizome | OPR 1 | + | ++ |
OPR 2 | + | – | |
OPR 3 | – | – | |
OPR 4 | + | +++ | |
OPR 5 | + | – | |
OPR 6 | + | – | |
OPR 7 | + | + | |
OPR 8 | + | + | |
Spike | OPS 1 | – | – |
OPS 2 | + | – | |
OPS 3 | + | +++ | |
"+"indicate positive response, "–" indicate negative response. |