
Citation: M. A. Kalhan S. Boralessa, H. V. Vimukkthi Priyadarshana, K. T. M. Udayanga Hemapala. A review on control systems for fast demand response for ancillary services[J]. AIMS Energy, 2020, 8(6): 1108-1126. doi: 10.3934/energy.2020.6.1108
[1] | Hamdi Abdulwahab Alhakimi, Omima Gadalla Mohamed, Hayat Salah Eldin Khogaly, Khalid Ahmad Omar Arafa, Waled Amen Ahmed . Epidemiological, Clinical and Entomological Characteristics of Yellow Fever Outbreak in Darfur 2012. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(1): 132-141. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.1.132 |
[2] | Testimony J Olumade, Oluwafolajimi A Adesanya, Iyanuoluwa J Fred-Akintunwa, David O Babalola, Judith U Oguzie, Olusola A Ogunsanya, Uwem E George, Oluwawapelumi D Akin-Ajani, Damilola G Osasona . Infectious disease outbreak preparedness and response in Nigeria: history, limitations and recommendations for global health policy and practice. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(4): 736-757. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020057 |
[3] | Le Thi Diem Phuong, Tran Thi Tuyet Hanh, Vu Sinh Nam . Climate Variability and Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever in Ba Tri District, Ben Tre Province, Vietnam during 2004–2014. AIMS Public Health, 2016, 3(4): 769-780. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.4.769 |
[4] | Srikanth Umakanthan, Anuradha Chauhan, Madan Mohan Gupta, Pradeep Kumar Sahu, Maryann M Bukelo, Vijay Kumar Chattu . COVID-19 pandemic containment in the Caribbean Region: A review of case-management and public health strategies. AIMS Public Health, 2021, 8(4): 665-681. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2021053 |
[5] | Mohammed A. Soghaier, Khwaja M.I. Saeed, Khushhal K. Zaman . Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) has Declared Twice in 2014; Polio and Ebola at the Top. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(2): 218-222. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.2.218 |
[6] | Viorica Munteanu, Antonella Petaccia, Nicolae Contecaru, Emanuele Amodio, Carlo Virginio Agostoni . Paediatric acute rheumatic fever in developed countries: Neglected or negligible disease? Results from an observational study in Lombardy (Italy). AIMS Public Health, 2018, 5(2): 135-143. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2018.2.135 |
[7] | Sumbal Javed, Vijay Kumar Chattu, Hamid Allahverdipour . Predators among protectors: overcoming power abuse during humanitarian crisis through effective humanitarian diplomacy and a gender-transformative approach. AIMS Public Health, 2021, 8(2): 196-205. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2021015 |
[8] | Terri Rebmann, Kristin D. Wilson, Travis Loux, Ayesha Z. Iqbal, Eleanor B. Peters, Olivia Peavler . Outcomes, Approaches, and Challenges to Developing and Passing a Countywide Mandatory Vaccination Policy: St. Louis County’s Experience with Hepatitis A Vaccine for Food Service Personnel. AIMS Public Health, 2016, 3(1): 116-130. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.116 |
[9] | Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Muhammad Wajahat Anjum, Muhammad Asif Zahoor Raja, Muhammad Shoaib . Recurrent neural network for the dynamics of Zika virus spreading. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(2): 432-458. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024022 |
[10] | Farhana Sultana, Hasan Mahmud Reza . Are SAARC countries prepared to combat COVID-19 to save young, working-age population?. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(3): 440-449. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020036 |
Phosphorus is an essential/key nutrient required by planted crops for growth and other vital metabolic processes. It is next to nitrogen in terms of significance for plant sustenance [1]. However, despite the phosphorus second position status with being a growth-limiting nutrient, it is not atmospherically present and cannot be fixed biologically, unlike nitrogen [2]. The soluble phosphate fertilizer application in soil encourages maximum/optimum growth of plants and importantly improves soil health. Supplying the required number of phosphorus to crops enhances the growth/development of roots and can lead to early plant maturity. Also, it is significant in the formation of seeds, vital in all plant metabolic processes, plant growth enhancement, and the ability of plants to resist phytopathogens [3]. Microbial phosphate-solubilizers can biotransform phosphatic compounds insoluble to soluble forms for plant assimilation in soil [4,5]. The mineralization of organic phosphate contributes immensely to the phosphorus-cycling function in agriculture. Organic phosphate has contributed a greater percentage of total soil phosphate; however, many microorganisms that are found in the rhizosphere and the surrounding soil have phosphate-solubilizing ability influence by microbial phosphatases [6].
Maize (Zea mays L) is globally important and it is an intensely grown cereal plant all over the globe. It is a commercially cultivated crop worldwide. Maize (Zea mays L.) is a highly prized food crop worldwide [7,8]. It is consumed throughout the globe as a staple food. It is economically important in industrial sectors; pharmaceutical, food, livestock feed, paper, and even in the energy industry [9]. Thus, based on its economic value, the demand for maize is always high. It is used as a nutritious food source and important in industry for producing various values-added products [10].
The search for sustainable options for reducing agrochemical intensification of crop productivity is an important research theme in today’s global crop production processes. Justifiable drawbacks of agrochemical applications in the crop production value chain are they are nonrenewable resources and not eco-friendly, groundwater is polluted, cost of energy is high, biodiversity is impacted negatively, as well as the issue of eutrophication [11]. Thus, the use of green technology like the deployment of microbial resources as bioinoculating agents that are safer and ecologically sustainable are viable alternatives to synthetic chemical applications in agricultural productivity [12].
This research represents an attempt to isolate atoxigenic Aspergillus flavus strains and assess their plant growth enhancement capability when used as biofertilizer for the growth of maize. UV- irradiation mutation of the atoxigenic Aspergillus flavus strains was performed for the enhancement of their phosphate-solubilizing ability. Biofertilizers increase the availability of nutrients required to plants by fixing nitrogen through solubilization of phosphates by producing metabolites that enhances the growth of plants. Biofertilizers are viable alternatives in decreasing the usage of synthetic fertilizers and other agrochemicals. Biofertilizers play an important role in soil health and improve plant fitness through microbial mediated metabolite production. Biofertilizers are harmless, natural biological resources that function efficiently. Therefore, phosphate solubilizing microorganisms as biofertilizers provide ecologically friendly agricultural input that is cheaper and economical than the commonly used synthetic fertilizers [13]. The usage of phosphate biofertilizers is an encouraging approach to enhance world food security through the improvement of agricultural yield in developing countries in Africa and Asia [14].
This investigation determined the beneficial effects of non-toxigenic A. flavus strains that are phosphate solubilizers as biofertilizer to enhance growth parameters and mineral elements content of maize plants.
This investigation was done in Nigeria, at the Research Institute for Stored Product (NSPRI), Ilorin. Ilorin is a town in Kwara state of Nigeria located in the North central geopolitical zone with characteristics of the guinea savanna zone vegetation (Longitude N 8.3° and Latitude E 4.33°). This research experiment was conducted in the year 2017–2019.
Sample collection and experimental conditions
Samples were collected from the rhizosphere soil of planted maize crop. Soil was scrapped carefully to about 6–7 cm depth; soil sample was collected into an aluminum foil paper, using an auger and was transported to laboratory for further analysis. The soil sample was processed immediately for the isolation of phosphate solubilizing fungi [15]. The phosphate solubilizing fungi strains were the wild-type originally isolated from the rhizospheric soil of maize plant, while the maize was obtained from Germplasm collection of NSPRI. The potting experimental study was conducted in a greenhouse.
The cycle of light/dark received by the plant during pot experimental growth stage was 12 hours light and 12 hours dark cycle.
Phosphate solubilizing fungi (PSF) were isolated from the above-named soil sample by serial dilution using Pikovskaya medium agar containing tri-calcium phosphate (TCP) [16]. Appropriate soil dilutions were plated on Pikovskaya agar medium by spread plate method before incubation at 28 ± 2 ℃ for 7 days. The fungal isolates that formed halo zone clearance of insoluble calcium phosphate, while growing on (Pikovskaya agar) plate were selected as potential phosphate solubilizers [17].
Coconut agar i.e desiccated neutral red incorporated coconut agar (NRDCA) was used to screen for the ability of Aspergillus flavus to produce aflatoxins in order to determine and certify its safety as biofertilizer. In brief, neutral red desiccated coconut agar (NRDCA) is a formulated medium that is used for the detection of aflatoxigenic fungi and direct visual determination of aflatoxins.
200 grams of desiccated coconut is soaked in 1litre of hot distilled water and blended to obtain the filtrate. To the filtrate, 2% agar powder is added and homogenized by gentle heating. To the homogenized medium is added 0.3% neutral red stain before sterilization by autoclaving. The fungal isolate was inoculated on petri-plate using coconut agar to detect aflatoxin production following [18]. protocol. Aflatoxigenic positive isolate was expected to indicate yellow color following incubation on agar plate and fluorescence at (365 nm) UV irradiation.
The mutants of the selected non-aflatoxigenic Aspergillus flavus isolates were developed with the use of UV irradiation at 254 nm wavelength. The isolates were grown in Pikovskaya broth for 7 days and the mycelium was macerated with the help of a tissue homogenizer. 5ml of the mycelia suspension (35–40 CFU/ml) was transferred to Pikovskaya agar plates and exposed to UV “irradiation for 90, 60, 30, and 15 minutes respectively”. Aspergillus flavus isolates that were irradiated with UV light for 15, 30, 60 and 90 minutes were designated as AF15, AF30, AF60, AF90 mutants.
100 µl of irradiated mycelia suspension was inoculated on PDA plate and incubation of plates done at 28 ± 2 ℃ for 72 h along with the control (non-mutated A. flavus isolate). The survived colonies were obtained after 72 h of incubation [19].
Thereafter, fungi isolate phosphate solubilization capability was determined both quantitatively and qualitatively [20].
Qualitative assay for phosphate solubilizing activity
Pure culture of wild AF (original isolates) and its mutants were spot inoculated (1.0 × 106 spores/ml of isolates) at the center of already prepared agar plates of Pikovskaya agar medium. The incubation of plates was done at room temperature for 7 days. Fungi isolates that solubilizes insoluble phosphates contained in (PKA agar medium plate), forming greater than 5.0 cm zone of solubilization were preferentially selected as phosphate solubilizers, and maintained as stock isolates on PDA for subsequent studies. The zone of phosphate solubilization (cm) formed around colonies was recorded after every 24 hours for 7 days. The solubilizing efficiency of the fungi was calculated using the formula.
Solubilization index=(Z+C)C |
Z=solubilization zone(cm) |
C=colony diameter(cm). |
Pikovskaya medium with known amount of phosphorus containing 0.005 g/L bromophenol blue (BPB) was prepared [21]. The isolates that were positive on tri-calcium phosphate solubilization (Pikovskaya agar) medium were tested further for phosphate solubilization in broth culture medium.
The incubation of isolates in Pikovskaya broth medium was at 28 ± 2 ℃ for 3–4 days followed by centrifugation at 5000 rpm for 15 mins. The fungal cultures were filtered after centrifugation using Whatman filter paper. 1 ml from the filtrate was mixed with 10 ml of ammonium molybdate and the content was diluted to 45 ml. Chlorostanus acid (0.25 ml) was added to each treatments and final volume were made up to 50 ml using distilled water. Appearance of blue color intensity of the solutions was measured using a colorimeter at 600 nm. The amount of phosphorus solubilized was calculated and obtained with the help of a standard curve [22].
A greenhouse pot trial experiment was carried out with 6 treatments and 3 replications. All the experimental pots were treated with their respective isolates. The maize seeds were collected from the Horticultural Research Institutes (NIHORT), Ibadan. The seeds were sown in the plastic pots (4 seeds/pot) filled with 10 kg of sterilized loamy soil. All the fungal isolates were grown in Pikovskaya broth in 20 ml each at the corresponding temperature. Seeds of maize were surface sterilized and spore suspensions (4 ml) of 1 × 106 spores/ml of all isolates were inoculated into soils 48 h prior to sowing. Un-inoculated pot was the control [23]. The observed data on seedling height (cm), percentage seed germination (%), height of plant (cm), leaves number, dry matter (g), cob length (cm), cob weight (g), 100 grain weight (g), grain yield (g/pot). The experimental set-up was replicated thrice and is as described below:
(Influence of Aspergillus flavus (AF) strains as bioinoculants on growth parameters and mineral nutritional content of maize plant.)
Treatment 1 – Maize seeds + AF90;
Treatment 2 – Maize seeds + AF60;
Treatment 3 – Maize seeds + AF30;
Treatment 4 – Maize seeds + AF15;
Treatment 5 – Maize seeds + wild AF;
Treatment 6 – Maize seeds only (control).
Data on all parameters studied was statistically inferred using one-way (ANOVA). Data was analyzed using PROC GLM SAS software. Data were recorded in triplicates and analyzed, while means were separated using Duncan multiple range test (DMRT) and probability significance level was 95%.
The phosphate solubilization results obtained in this investigation indicated differences (p < 0.05) for all the A. flavus strains used. Among all the fungi strains that was assessed for phosphate solubilization potential on Pikovskaya agar medium qualitatively, the mutant Aspergillus flavus (AF90) strain showed maximum level of phosphate solubilization activity (This is reflected in Figure 1).
Also, the quantitative phosphate solubilizing analysis indicated that Aspergillus flavus mutant (AF90) showed maximum level of phosphate solubilization (7.3 ppm) efficiency/activity and the wild type of the Aspergillus flavus (Wild AF) recorded the least/lowest solubilization efficiency of (3.2 ppm) after 7 days of incubation (Table 1).
Strains | Quantity of phosphate solubilized after 3 days T3 (ppm) |
Quantity of phosphate solubilized after 5 days QT5 (ppm) |
Quantity of phosphate solubilized after 7 days QT7 (ppm) |
AF15 | 2.43 ± 0.01d | 3.15 ± 0.01d | 4.32 ± 0.01d |
AF30 | 3.02 ± 0.01c | 4.22 ± 0.01c | 5.64 ± 0.01c |
AF60 | 4.07 ± 0.01b | 5.92 ± 0.01b | 6.36 ± 0.01b |
AF90 | 5.01 ± 0.01a | 6.63 ± 0.01a | 7.34 ± 0.01a |
Wild AF | 1.26 ± 0.01e | 2.68 ± 0.01e | 3.21 ± 0.01e |
Control | 0.52 ± 0.02f | 0.72 ± 0.01f | 1.27 ± 0.15f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 15 min); AF30: Mutated strain Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Also, results obtained in the pot trial experiment to investigate the effectiveness of Aspergillus flavus and its mutants to enhance the growth parameters and elemental nutritional composition of the maize plant, indicated that there was significant increases in agronomic parameters for shoot length (cm), percentage seed germination (%), plant height (cm), plant leaves number, cob length (cm), cob weight (g), 100 grain weight (g), grain yield (g/pot) when treatments with the fungi strain inoculants were compared to the control. These results are shown in Tables 2–6.
Fungal strains | GERMINATION % |
SHOOT LENGTH (30 DAP) (cm) |
PLANT HEIGHT (30 DAP) (cm) |
PLANTHEIGHT (60DAP) (cm) |
PLANT HEIGHT (90 DAP) (cm) |
NUMBER OF LEAVES (30 DAP) |
NUMBER OF LEAVES (60 DAP) |
NUMBER OF LEAVES (90 DAP) |
AF15 | 63.33 ± 3.05d | 9.16 ± 0.21d | 58.20 ± 0.10d | 76.20 ± 0.20d | 81.20 ± 0.20d | 8.17 ± 0.02d | 10.69 ± 0.06d | 11.17 ± 0.14d |
AF30 | 82.67 ± 3.05c | 11.50 ± 0.26c | 65.33 ± 0.31c | 83.46 ± 0.25c | 92.30 ± 0.31c | 8.23 ± 0.01c | 19.03 ± 0.03c | 12.10 ± 0.09c |
AF60 | 84.33 ± 4.04b | 12.43 ± 0.21b | 73.33 ± 0.20b | 94.36 ± 0.32b | 201.43 ± 0.21b | 9.02 ± 0.01b | 10.43 ± 0.20b | 14.14 ± 0.12b |
AF90 | 99.10 ± 1.0a | 14.30 ± 0.10a | 88.73 ± 0.64a | 127.40 ± 0.20a | 228.20 ± 0.2a | 9.22 ± 0.01a | 14.20 ± 0.15a | 16.84 ± 0.03a |
Wild AF | 60.66 ± 1.15e | 7.60 ± 0.26e | 53.10 ± 0.1e | 65.46 ± 0.32e | 78.56 ± 0.49e | 7.34 ± 0.02e | 9.18 ± 0.07e | 11.02 ± 0.03e |
Control | 43.33 ± 3.05f | 5.50 ± 0.26f | 45.23 ± 0.15f | 63.20 ± 0.20f | 73.40 ± 0.20f | 7.22 ± 0.02f | 8.14 ± 0.12f | 9.15 ± 0.11f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 15 min); AF30: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). %GERM: Percentage germination; SDLHT: Seedling heights; PLHT30: Plant height at 30 d of planting; PLHT60: Plant height at 60 d of planting; PLHT90: Plant height at 90 d of planting; NOLP30: Leaves number at 30 d of planting; NOLP60: Leaves number at 60 d of planting; NOLP90: Leaves number at 90 d of planting. The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Strains | Cob length (cm) | 100 grain weight (g) | Grain yield (g/pot) |
AF15 | 12.36 ± 0.15d | 151.60 ± 1.44d | 56.13 ± 0.70d |
AF30 | 13.30 ± 0.26c | 162.80 ± 0.72c | 59.13 ± 0.30c |
AF60 | 14.50 ± 0.15b | 172.06 ± 0.50b | 63.06 ± 0.31b |
AF90 | 15.30 ± 0.20a | 188.90 ± 0.65a | 76.06 ± 0.30a |
Wild AF | 11.56 ± 0.15e | 142.60 ± 0.41e | 46.01 ± 0.35e |
Control | 7.43 ± 0.20f | 81.06 ± 0.41f | 21.46 ± 0.15f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 15 min); AF30: Mutated strain Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Fungi strains | Zinc (Zn) (mg/Kg) Tasseling (leaves) |
Zinc (Zn) (mg/Kg) Harvest (whole plant) |
Iron (Fe) (mg/Kg) Tasseling (leaves) |
Iron (Fe) (mg/Kg) Harvest (whole plant) |
AF15 | 38.93 ± 0.46d | 35.11 ± 0.12d | 133.36 ± 0.58d | 120.76 ± 0.70d |
AF30 | 43.20 ± 0.41c | 40.22 ± 0.20c | 143.16 ± 0.37c | 126.13 ± 0.32c |
AF60 | 45.20 ± 0.40b | 41.21 ± 0.20b | 165.06 ± 0.59b | 133.40 ± 0.20b |
AF90 | 48.95 ± 0.47a | 45.01 ± 0.62a | 178.34 ± 0.41a | 142.20 ± 0.60a |
Wild AF | 37.06 ± 0.61e | 32.36 ± 0.40e | 121.33 ± 0.5e | 101.73 ± 0.70e |
Control | 21.73 ± 0.41f | 20.46 ± 0.41f | 89.13 ± 0.31f | 70.20 ± 0.31f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV15 min); AF30: Mutated strain Aspergillus flavus visible (UV30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Fungi strains | Nitrogen (N) % Tasseling (leaves) |
Nitrogen (N) % Harvest (whole plant) |
Phosphorus (P) % Tasseling (leaves) |
Phosphorus (P) % Harvest (whole plant) |
Potassium (K) % Tasseling (leaves) |
Potassium (K) % Harvest (whole plant) |
AF15 | 1.63 ± 0.02d | 0.52 ± 0.03d | 0.37 ± 0.02d | 0.29 ± 0.02d | 2.42 ± 0.02d | 1.61 ± 0.01d |
AF30 | 1.74 ± 0.02c | 0.63 ± 0.02c | 0.41 ± 0.01c | 0.32 ± 0.02c | 2.66 ± 0.03c | 1.94 ± 0.02c |
AF60 | 1.85 ± 0.03b | 0.95 ± 0.02b | 0.44 ± 0.03b | 0.37 ± 0.02b | 3.72 ± 0.02b | 2.13 ± 0.03b |
AF90 | 2.01 ± 0.07a | 0.98 ± 0.01a | 0.57 ± 0.01a | 0.42 ± 0.01a | 3.96 ± 0.01a | 2.83 ± 0.02a |
Wild AF | 1.54 ± 0.01e | 0.54 ± 0.02e | 0.36 ± 0.01e | 0.24 ± 0.01e | 2.04 ± 0.03e | 1.43 ± 0.02e |
Control | 1.43 ± 0.04f | 0.44 ± 0.02f | 0.31 ± 0.01f | 0.21 ± 0.01f | 1.97 ± 0.02f | 1.23 ± 0.01f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV15 min); AF30: Mutated strain Aspergillus flavus visible (UV30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Treatment | Phosphorus uptake (mg/pot) | Nitrogen uptake (mg/pot) | Potassium uptake (mg/pot) | Magnesium uptake (mg/pot) |
AF15 | 50.2 ± 0.20d | 273.66 ± 2.51d | 721.66 ± 1.52d | 153.66 ± 3.05d |
AF30 | 73.16 ± 0.21c | 294.66 ± 2.52c | 751.66 ± 2.08c | 162.66 ± 2.51c |
AF60 | 86.56 ± 0.15b | 361.33 ± 1.52b | 762.66 ± 2.51b | 173.33 ± 1.52b |
AF90 | 92.23 ± 0.21a | 376.66 ± 2.51a | 794.33 ± 1.53a | 185.66 ± 1.52a |
Wild AF | 47.30 ± 0.26e | 265.33 ± 2.51e | 603.33 ± 2.51e | 123.33 ± 2.51e |
Control | 23.36 ± 0.40f | 120.66 ± 1.53f | 403.00 ± 2.64f | 85.66 ± 3.21f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV15 min); AF30: Mutated strain Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
In this study, Aspergillus flavus efficient strains in solubilizing phosphate were isolated and characterized. Also, the toxigenic screening assay for aflatoxin production was conducted on these strains and they were confirmed to be non-toxigenic. In both qualitative and quantitative phosphate solubilization assay analysis, these Aspergillus flavus strains were also confirmed as phosphate solubilizers. Thereafter, the influence of these fungi strains was tested on the agronomic growth parameters and mineral nutrient content of maize plants.
The highlights of this study are that efficient strains of non-toxigenic Aspergillus flavus with the capability to solubilize phosphate can be beneficial in promoting both the agronomic growth parameters and increasing mineral nutrient content of maize plants.
The results obtained indicated that the A. flavus strains are efficient phosphate solubilizers and solubilize phosphate in broth culture to varying quantities. These results are similar to studies done by [24,25]. They all reported fungi that belong to the genus Aspergillus as phosphate solubilizers. Also, in a study by [26], it was reported that Aspergillus spp showed diverse levels of phosphate solubilization activity in broth culture using different mineral sources. Thus, it was explained that this solubilizing ability is due to their production of phosphate-degrading enzymes.
Besides, the results obtained for maize plant growth improvement showed that plant heights of the A. flavus strain treated pots were found to be more than the untreated control plant. Also, the germination percentage, shoot length, the number of leaves produced, as well as the maize grain yield at harvest were enhanced by the A. flavus strains inoculation treatment compared to the un-inoculated control. The results from our findings on the improvement of agronomic growth parameters correlate with reported outcomes of investigations of [27,28]. They reported that phosphate solubilizing fungi can increase plant heights in pot experiments and under field conditions. The results correlate with findings obtained by [29,30], whose work focused on the influence of fungi phosphate solubilizers on yield and nutritional content of maize (Zea mays L) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L). Their findings also recorded enhanced dry matter production of maize when inoculated with Penicillium spp and Aspergillus awamori.
Wang X [31], also noted that the application of phosphate-solubilizing fungi increases the growth of planted crops. Fungi that solubilize phosphates enhance agronomic growth parameters of planted crops and are key components of global sustainable agroecological productivity [32]. Their deployment as biofertilizers improve phosphate availability to crops and reduces the number of synthetic phosphate fertilizers required for planted crops [33,34]. Phosphate solubilizing fungi improve the growth of plants by the production of vital biomolecules like lytic enzymes, ACC deaminase, antimicrobial substances, siderophores, hormonal production, hydrogen cyanide, among others [35,36,37,38,39].
The main mechanism of action of phosphate solubilizing fungi is by secretion of organic acids that chelates with phosphate ions, thereby releasing soluble phosphate [40]. Organic acids, thus, secreted, acidify the soil environment and thus solubilizing insoluble orthophosphate ions to soluble phosphate ions that plants can easily assimilate [41,42]. Our findings in this investigation of improvement in agronomic growth parameters and nutritional elemental contents of maize attributable to phosphate solubilizing Aspergillus flavus strains with biofertilizer capabilities further corroborates earlier research reports of phosphate solubilizers beneficial impacts on different crops [43,44,45].
Despite the impressive results obtained in this pot experimental trial of using phosphate solubilizing Aspergillus flavus strains to improve agronomic yield and nutritional content of maize plants, there is still ground to cover and questions needing answers. Further research studies on the improvement of phosphate solubilizing fungi at the genomic level to determine the genes that regulate phosphate solubilization need to be investigated. Also, experimental field studies on fungus' phosphate solubilizing ability to enhance the maize growth considering abiotic and biotic stressors should be looked into.
Results from these investigations indicated that mutated strains of Aspergillus flavus are efficient phosphate solubilizers and that when used as bioinoculants on maize plants, can lead to higher beneficial influence on agronomic yield and mineral nutrients composition in maize compared with the un-inoculated control. An addition to existing knowledge of using microbial inoculants as an alternative to synthetic phosphate fertilizer is highlighted in this study. Therefore, more research into diverse ecological habitats for beneficial microorganisms that can serve as biofertilizing agents/alternatives to synthetic agrochemicals for maize yield enhancement should be explored.
The authorities in LAUTECH and (NSPRI), Nigeria, are well appreciated.
The authors had no potential contrary interest.
[1] | Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy, 2020. Available from: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/energy/. |
[2] | Kumar S, Madlener R (2018) Energy systems and COP21 Paris climate agreement targets in Germany: an integrated modeling approach. 2018 7th International Energy and Sustainability Conference (IESC), Cologne, 1-6. |
[3] | Jacob RT, Liyanapathirana R (2018) Technical feasibility in reaching renewable energy targets; Case study on australia. 2018 4th International Conference on Electrical Energy Systems (ICEES), Chennai, 630-634. |
[4] | Naeem A, Hassan NU (2020) Renewable energy intermittency mitigation in microgrids: State-of-the-art and future prospects. 2020 4th International Conference on Green Energy and Applications (ICGEA), Singapore, 158-164. |
[5] | Bailey M (1998) Provision of frequency responsive power reserve from disconnectable load. IEE Colloquium on Economic Provision Of A Frequency Responsive Power Reserve Service, London, UK, 5/1-5/5. |
[6] | Kirby B, Kueck J (1999) Oak ridge national laboratory. Consortium for Electric Reliability Technology Solutions Grid of the Future White Paper on Review of the Structure of Bulk Power Markets. USA. Available from: https://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/publications/ornl-tm-2000-41.pdf. |
[7] | Vardakas JS, Zorba N, Verikoukis CV (2015) A survey on demand response programs in smart grids: Pricing methods and optimization algorithms. IEEE Commun Surv Tutorials 17: 152-178. |
[8] | Deng R, Yang Z, Chow M, et al. (2015) A survey on demand response in smart grids: Mathematical models and approaches. IEEE Trans Ind Inf 11: 570-582. |
[9] | Priyadarshana HVV, Sandaru MAK, Hemapala K, et al. (2019) A review on Multi-Agent system based energy management systems for micro grids. AIMS Energy 7: 924-943. |
[10] | Samad T, Koch E, Stluka P (2016) Automated demand response for smart buildings and microgrids: The state of the practice and research challenges. Proc IEEE 104: 726-744. |
[11] | Kiliccote S, Lanzisera S, Liao A, et al. (2014) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Fast DR: Controlling Small Loads over the Internet, USA. |
[12] | Kirby BJ, Ally MR (2002) Oak ridge national laboratory. Spinning Reserves from Controllable Packaged Through the Wall Air Conditioner (PTAC) Units. USA. Available from: https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/ornl-tm-2002-286.pdf. |
[13] | Kirby BJ, Kueck JD (2003) Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Spinning Reserve from Pump Load: A Technical Findings Report to the California Department of Water Resources. USA. Available from: https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub57490.pdf. |
[14] | Kirby BJ (2003) Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Spinning Reserve from Responsive Loads. USA. Available from: https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub57288.pdf. |
[15] | Kirby BJ (2006) Oak ridge national laboratory. Demand Response For Power System Reliability: FAQs. USA. Available from: https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub57490.pdf. |
[16] | Kirby B, Kueck J, Laughner T, et al. (2008) Oak ridge national laboratory. Spinning Reserve from Hotel Load Response: Initial Progress. USA. Available from: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc898084/m2/1/high_res_d/941052.pdf. |
[17] | Todd D, Caufield M, Helms B (2008) Oak ridge national laboratory. Providing reliability services through demand response: A preliminary evaluation of the demand response capabilities of Alcoa Inc. USA. Available from: https://certs.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/dr-alcoa.pdf. |
[18] | Kueck JD, Kirby BJ, Ally MR, et al. (2009) Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Using Air Conditioning Load Response for Spinning Reserve. USA. Available from: https://fidvr.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/air-conditioning-load.pdf. |
[19] | Kueck JD, Snyder AF, Li F, et al. (2010) Use of responsive load to supply ancillary services in the smart grid: Challenges and approach. 2010 First IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications, Gaithersburg, MD, 507-512. |
[20] | Eto JH, Nelson-Hoffman J, Kueck J, et al. (2007) Lawrence berkeley national laboratory. Demand Response Spinning Reserve Demonstration. USA. Available from: https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl-62761.pdf. |
[21] | Heffner G, Goldman C, Kirby B, et al. (2016) Lawrence berkeley national laboratory. Loads Providing Ancillary Services: Review of International Experience. USA. Available from: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/DocumentsandMedia/Loads_providing_Ancillary_Services_main_report_62701.pdf. |
[22] | Kiliccote S, Piette MA, Ghatikar G, et al. (2009) Lawrence berkeley national laboratory. Open Automated Demand Response Communications in Demand Response for Wholesale Ancillary Services. USA. Available from: https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl-2945e.pdf. |
[23] | Nikolic D, Negnevitsky M, De Groot M, et al. (2014) Fast demand response as an enabling technology for high renewable energy penetration in isolated power systems. 2014 IEEE PES General Meeting | Conference & Exposition, National Harbor, MD, 1-5. |
[24] | Nikolic D, Negnevitsky M, De Groot M (2016) Fast demand response as spinning reserve in microgrids. Mediterranean Conference on Power Generation, Transmission, Distribution and Energy Conversion (MedPower 2016), Belgrade, 1-5. |
[25] | Ninagawa C, Iwahara T, Suzuki K (2015) Enhancement of OpenADR communication for flexible fast ADR aggregation using TRAP mechanism of IEEE1888 protocol. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT), Seville, 2450-2454. |
[26] | Yamada T, Suzuki K, Ninagawa C (2018) Scalability analysis of aggregation web services for smart grid fast automated demand response. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT), Lyon, 1285-1289. |
[27] | Kim H, Kim Y, Yang K, et al. (2011) Cloud-based demand response for smart grid: Architecture and distributed algorithms. 2011 IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm), Brussels, 398-403. |
[28] | Matsukawa S, Ninagawa C, Morikawa J, et al. (2019) Stable segment method for multiple linear regression on baseline estimation for smart grid fast automated demand response. 2019 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies-Asia (ISGT Asia), Chengdu, China, 2571-2576. |
[29] | Hindi H, Greene D, Laventall C (2011) Coordinating regulation and demand response in electric power grids using multirate model predictive control. ISGT 2011, Anaheim, CA, 1-8. |
[30] | Chassin DP, Behboodi S, Shi Y, et al. (2017) H2-optimal transactive control of electric power regulation from fast-acting demand response in the presence of high renewable. Appl Energy 205: 304-315. |
[31] | Chang-Chien L, An LN, Lin T, et al. (2012) Incorporating demand response with spinning reserve to realize an adaptive frequency restoration plan for system contingencies. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 3: 1145-1153. |
[32] | Christakou K, Tomozei D, Le Boudec J, et al. (2014) GECN: Primary Voltage Control for Active Distribution Networks via Real-Time Demand-Response. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 5: 622-631. |
[33] | Watson DS, Matson N, Page J, et al. (2012) Lawrence berkeley national laboratory. Fast Automated Demand Response to Enable the Integration of Renewable Resources. USA. Available from: https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/LBNL-5555E.pdf. |
[34] | MacDonald J, Cappers P, Callaway D, et al. (2012) Lawrence berkeley national laboratory. Demand Response Providing Ancillary Services A Comparison of Opportunities and Challenges in the US Wholesale Markets. USA. Available from: https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl-5958e.pdf. |
[35] | Behboodi S, Chassin DP, Crawford C, et al. (2016) Renewable resources portfolio optimization in the presence of demand response. Appl Energy 162: 139-148. |
[36] | Marinov AK, Verbič G, Chapman AC (2014) An investigation into the economic benefits of fast-timescale demand response using thermostatically controlled loads on the NEM. 2014 Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conference (AUPEC), Perth, WA, 1-6. |
[37] | Wong S (2015) CanmetENERGY Research Brief: Summary Report on Canadian Residential Demand Response and Ancillary Service Market Opportunities. Canada. Available from: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/canmetenergy/files/pubs/CdnResDRandASMktOps-FINALE_EN.pdf. |
[38] | Beil I, Hiskens I, Backhaus S (2015) Round-trip efficiency of fast demand response in a large commercial air conditioner. Energy Build 97: 47-55. |
[39] | Beil I, Hiskens I, Backhaus S (2016) Frequency regulation from commercial building HVAC demand response. Proc IEEE 104: 745-757. |
[40] | Bellifemine FL, Benini M, Canevese S, et al. (2018) The Italian ancillary service market: Preliminary cost-benefit analysis for BTS demand response. 2018 IEEE International Telecommunications Energy Conference (INTELEC), Turin, 1-8. |
[41] | Bovera F, Delfanti M, Bellifemine F (2018) Economic opportunities for Demand Response by Data Centers within the new Italian Ancillary Service Market. 2018 IEEE International Telecommunications Energy Conference (INTELEC), Turin, 1-8. |
[42] | Eto JH, Nelson-Hoffman J, Parker E, et al, (2012) Demand response spinning reserve demonstration--measuring the speed and magnitude of aggregated demand response. 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, 2012-2019. |
[43] | MacDougall P, Heskes P, Crolla PG, et al. (2013) Fast demand response in support of the active distribution network. 22nd International Conference and Exhibition on Electricity Distribution (CIRED 2013), Stockholm, 1-4. |
[44] | Mega T, Kitagami S, Kawawaki S, et al. (2017) Experimental evaluation of a fast demand response system for small/medium-scale office buildings. 2017 31st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (WAINA), Taipei, 291-295. |
[45] | Marques L, Campos F, Fonseca R, et al. (2019) Liscool-A demonstration project of an automated fast demand response management system: main outcoms. CIRED 2019 Conference, Madrid. |
[46] | Lakshmanan V, Marinelli M, Hu J, et al. (2016) Provision of secondary frequency control via demand response activation on thermostatically controlled loads: Solutions and experiences from Denmark. Appl Energy 173: 470-480. |
[47] | Eto JH, Nelson-Hoffman J, Parker E, et al. (2009) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Demand Response Spinning Reserve Demonstration-Phase 2 Findings from the Summer of 2008, USA. Available from: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/972811. |
[48] | Vijayananda WMT, Samarakoon K, Ekanayake J (2010) Development of a demonstration rig for providing primary frequency response through smart meters. 45th International Universities Power Engineering Conference UPEC2010, Cardiff, Wales, 1-6. |
[49] | Nikolic D, Negnevitsky MM (2016) Fast demand response as spinning reserve in microgrids. Mediterranean Conference on Power Generation, Transmission, Distribution and Energy Conversion (MedPower 2016), Belgrade, 1-5. |
[50] | Hao H, Middelkoop T, Barooah P, et al. (2012) How demand response from commercial buildings will provide the regulation needs of the grid. 2012 50th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), Monticello, IL, 1908-1913. |
[51] | Hao H, Kowli A, Lin Y, et al. (2013) Ancillary service for the grid via control of commercial building HVAC systems. 2013 American Control Conference, Washington, DC, 467-472. |
[52] | Zhao P, Henze GP, Plamp S, et al. (2013) Evaluation of commercial building HVAC systems as frequency regulation providers. Energy Build 67: 225-235. |
[53] | Hao H, Sanandaji BM, Poolla K, et al. (2013) A generalized battery model of a collection of Thermostatically Controlled Loads for providing ancillary service. 2013 51st Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), Monticello, IL, 551-558. |
[54] | Meyn S, Barooah P, Bušić A, et al. (2013) Ancillary service to the grid from deferrable loads: The case for intelligent pool pumps in Florida. 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Florence, 6946-6953. |
[55] | Lin Y, Meyn S, Barooah P (2013) Commercial building HVAC system in power grid ancillary services. Available from: http://plaza.ufl.edu/yashenlin, University of Florida, Tech. Rep. |
[56] | Lin Y, Barooah P, Meyn SP (2013) Low-frequency power-grid ancillary services from commercial building HVAC systems. 2013 IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm), Vancouver, BC, 169-174. |
[57] | Hao H, Lin Y, Kowli AS, et al. (2014) Ancillary service to the grid through control of fans in commercial building HVAC systems. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 5: 2066-2074. |
[58] | Lin Y, Barooah P, Meyn S, et al. (2015) Experimental evaluation of frequency regulation from commercial building HVAC systems. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 6: 776-783. |
[59] | Ninagawa C, Kondo S, Isozumi S, et al. (2012) Fine-time-granularity fast demand control of building HVAC facilities for future smart grid. 2012 3rd IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT Europe), Berlin, 1-6. |
[60] | Suzuki K, Ninagawa C, Yoshida H, et al. (2013) Smart grid ADR aggregation delay model on large-scale distributed building HVAC facilities. IEEE PES ISGT Europe 2013, Lyngby, 1-5. |
[61] | Ninagawa C, Taga K, Kiyota A, et al. (2015) Emulation system on smart grid Fast Automated Demand Response of widely-distributed stochastically-operating building facilities. 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Systems Engineering (ISSE), Rome, 66-70. |
[62] | Aoki Y, Suzuki K, Ninagawa C, et al. (2019) Averaging effect model on aggregation margin of fast demand responses of building multi-type air-conditioners. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT), Melbourne, Australia, 1274-1279. |
[63] | Cui B, Wang SW, Yan C, et al. (2014) A compound fast chiller power demand response strategy for buildings. 2014 International Conference on Sustainable Energy technologies (SET2014), Switzerland. |
[64] | Xue X, Wang SW, Yan C, et al. (2015) A fast chiller power demand response control strategy for buildings connected to smart grid. Appl Energy. |
[65] | Tang R Wang SW, Yan C (2018) A direct load control strategy of centralized air-conditioning systems for building fast demand response to urgent requests of smart grids. Autom Constr 87: 74-83. |
[66] | Tang R, Wang SW, Xu L (2019) An MPC-based optimal control strategy of active thermal storage in commercial buildings during fast demand response events in smart grids. Energy Proc 158: 2506-2511. |
[67] | Wang SW, Gao D, Tang R, et al. (2016) Cooling supply-based HVAC system control for fast demand response of buildings to urgent requests of smart grids. Energy Proc 103: 34-39. |
[68] | Cui B, Gao D, Wang SW, et al. (2015) Effectiveness and life-cycle cost-benefit analysis of active cold storages for building demand management for smart grid applications. Appl Energy 147: 523-535. |
[69] | Cui B, Wang SW, Yan CC, et al. (2015) Evaluation of a fast power demand response strategy using active and passive building cold storages for smart grid applications. Energy Convers Manage 102: 227-238. |
[70] | Wang S, Tang R (2017) Supply-based feedback control strategy of air-conditioning systems for direct load control of buildings responding to urgent requests of smart grids. Appl Energy 201: 419-432. |
[71] | Samarakoon K, Ekanayake J, Jenkins N (2012) Investigation of domestic load control to provide primary frequency response using smart meters. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 3: 282-292. |
[72] | Koch S, Mathieu JL, Callaway DS (2011) Modeling and control of aggregated heterogeneous thermostatically controlled loads for ancillary services. Proc 17th Power Systems Computation Conf. |
[73] | Braslavsky JH, Perfumo C, Ward JK (2013) Model-based feedback control of distributed air-conditioning loads for fast demand-side ancillary services. 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Florence, 6274-6279. |
[74] | Lu N, Zhang Y (2013) Design considerations of a centralized load controller using thermostatically controlled appliances for continuous regulation reserves. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 4: 914-921. |
[75] | Goddard G, Klose J, Backhaus S (2014) Model development and identification for fast demand response in commercial HVAC systems. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 5: 2084-2092. |
[76] | Wada K, Yokoyama A, Kawauchi S, et al. (2014) Frequency control using fast demand response in power system with a large penetration of renewable energy sources. 2014 International Conference on Power System Technology, Chengdu, 1150-1156. |
[77] | McClurg J, Mudumbai R, Hall J (2016) Fast demand response with datacenter loads. 2016 IEEE Power & Energy Society Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference (ISGT), Minneapolis, MN, 1-5. |
[78] | Kiliccote S, Piette MA, Koch E, et al. (2011) Utilizing automated demand response in commercial buildings as non-spinning reserve product for ancillary services markets. 2011 50th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference, Orlando, FL, 4354-4360. |
[79] | Lanzisera S, Weber A, Liao A, et al. (2015) Lawrence berkeley national laboratory. Field Testing of Telemetry for Demand Response Control of Small Loads. USA. Available from: https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl-1004415.pdf. |
[80] | Negnevitsky M (2014) Demand response under the smart grid paradigm. The 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining (ISARC 2014), Sydney, Australia, 58-71. |
[81] | Zhang Y, Lu N (2013) Parameter selection for a centralized thermostatically controlled appliances load controller used for intra-hour load balancing. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 4: 2100-2108. |
[82] | Mathieu J, Dyson M, Callaway D (2012) Using residential electric loads for fast demand response: The potential resource and revenues, the costs, and policy recommendations. 2012 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. |
[83] | Vivekananthan C, Mishra Y (2015) Stochastic ranking method for thermostatically controllable appliances to provide regulation services. IEEE Trans Power Syst 30: 1987-1996. |
[84] | Kim Y, Kirtley JL, Norford LK (2014) Variable speed heat pump design for frequency regulation through direct load control. 2014 IEEE PES T & D Conference and Exposition, Chicago, IL, 1-5. |
[85] | Kim Y, Norford LK, Kirtley JL (2015) Modeling and analysis of a variable speed heat pump for frequency regulation through direct load control. IEEE Trans Power Syst 30: 397-408. |
[86] | Che Y, Yang J, Zhou Y, et al. (2019) Demand response from the control of aggregated inverter air conditioners. IEEE Access 7: 88163-88173. |
[87] | Hui HX, Ding Y, Yang SH (2019) Modeling and analysis of inverter air conditioners for primary frequency control considering signal delays and detection errors. Energy Proc 158: 4003-4010. |
[88] | Hui H, Ding Y, Zheng M (2019) Equivalent modeling of inverter air conditioners for providing frequency regulation service. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 66: 1413-1423. |
1. | Jamie Murphy, Frédérique Vallières, Richard P. Bentall, Mark Shevlin, Orla McBride, Todd K. Hartman, Ryan McKay, Kate Bennett, Liam Mason, Jilly Gibson-Miller, Liat Levita, Anton P. Martinez, Thomas V. A. Stocks, Thanos Karatzias, Philip Hyland, Psychological characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in Ireland and the United Kingdom, 2021, 12, 2041-1723, 10.1038/s41467-020-20226-9 | |
2. | Rose H. Manjili, Melika Zarei, Mehran Habibi, Masoud H. Manjili, COVID-19 as an Acute Inflammatory Disease, 2020, 205, 0022-1767, 12, 10.4049/jimmunol.2000413 | |
3. | Leonardo Caputo, Giovanni Lentini, Solomon Habtemariam, Repurposing therapeutic agents and herbal medicines to defeat viral nemesis, 2020, 81, 0272-4391, 641, 10.1002/ddr.21668 | |
4. | Naser F. Al-Tannak, Ladislav Novotny, Adel Alhunayan, Remdesivir—Bringing Hope for COVID-19 Treatment, 2020, 88, 2218-0532, 29, 10.3390/scipharm88020029 | |
5. | Soumya Banerjee, Mitigating the Impact of Covid-19 in Conflict Zones, 2020, 18, 13344676, 446, 10.7906/indecs.18.4.4 | |
6. | Jonas B. Sandbrink, Gregory D. Koblentz, Biosecurity risks associated with vaccine platform technologies, 2021, 0264410X, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.02.023 | |
7. | Oyewale Tomori, Matthew Olatunji Kolawole, Ebola virus disease: current vaccine solutions, 2021, 71, 09527915, 27, 10.1016/j.coi.2021.03.008 | |
8. | Andrey Romanyuk, Ruixue Wang, Alexander Marin, Benjamin M. Janus, Eric I. Felner, Dengning Xia, Yenny Goez-Gazi, Kendra J. Alfson, Abdul S. Yunus, Eric A. Toth, Gilad Ofek, Ricardo Carrion, Mark R. Prausnitz, Thomas R. Fuerst, Alexander K. Andrianov, Skin Vaccination with Ebola Virus Glycoprotein Using a Polyphosphazene-Based Microneedle Patch Protects Mice against Lethal Challenge, 2022, 14, 2079-4983, 16, 10.3390/jfb14010016 | |
9. | Nadezhda Duffy, Dana Bruden, Harold Thomas, Erin Nichols, Barbara Knust, Thomas Hennessy, Mary R Reichler, James Bangura, Charles Keimbe, Amara Jambai, Oliver Morgan, Ismail Farmar, Francis Davies, Mohamed Sima Dumbuya, Hannah Kamara, Mohamed Kallon, Joseph Kpukumu, Sheku Abu, Fatmata Bangura, Saidu Rahim Bangura, Tomeh Bangura, Hassan Benya, Sandi Blango, Imurana Conteh, Peter Conteh, Bintu Jabbie, Sheku Jabbie, Luseni Kamara, Francis Lansana, Maada Rogers, Sahr Brima Sewa, Matthew Yamba, P Bessler, Faith Washburn, E Ervin, S Campbell, W Chung, S Hersey, Risk factors for Ebola virus disease among household care providers, Sierra Leone, 2015, 2022, 51, 0300-5771, 1457, 10.1093/ije/dyac081 | |
10. | Saskia Wilhelmy, Regina Müller, Dominik Gross, Identifying the scope of ethical challenges caused by the Ebola epidemic 2014-2016 in West Africa: a qualitative study, 2022, 17, 1747-5341, 10.1186/s13010-022-00128-y | |
11. | Daniel Mukadi-Bamuleka, Junior Bulabula-Penge, Anja De Weggheleire, Bart K M Jacobs, François Edidi-Atani, Fabrice Mambu-Mbika, Placide Mbala-Kingebeni, Sheila Makiala-Mandanda, Martin Faye, Cheick T Diagne, Moussa M Diagne, Oumar Faye, Masahiro Kajihara, Ousmane Faye, Ayato Takada, Amadou A Sall, Jean-Jacques Muyembe-Tamfum, Johan van Griensven, Kevin K Ariën, Steve Ahuka-Mundeke, Field performance of three Ebola rapid diagnostic tests used during the 2018–20 outbreak in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo: a retrospective, multicentre observational study, 2022, 22, 14733099, 891, 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00675-7 | |
12. | Paula Mc Kenna, Serge Masyn, Annik Willems, Anne De Paepe, Romain Rutten, Jean Baptiste Mazarati, Felix Sayinzoga, Etienne Karita, Jean Nepo Nduwamungu, Amelia Mazzei, Julien Nyombayire, Rosine Ingabire, Monica Amponsah, Seth Gogo Egoeh, Nnamdi Ezeanochie, Leapfrogging with technology: introduction of a monitoring platform to support a large-scale Ebola vaccination program in Rwanda, 2021, 17, 2164-5515, 3192, 10.1080/21645515.2021.1920872 | |
13. | Abigail E. Powell, Duo Xu, Gillie A. Roth, Kaiming Zhang, Wah Chiu, Eric A. Appel, Peter S. Kim, Multimerization of Ebola GPΔmucin on protein nanoparticle vaccines has minimal effect on elicitation of neutralizing antibodies, 2022, 13, 1664-3224, 10.3389/fimmu.2022.942897 | |
14. | Emmanuel Gbenga Dada, David Opeoluwa Oyewola, Stephen Bassi Joseph, Onyeka Emebo, Olugbenga Oluseun Oluwagbemi, Ensemble Machine Learning for Monkeypox Transmission Time Series Forecasting, 2022, 12, 2076-3417, 12128, 10.3390/app122312128 | |
15. | Kimberly A. Hofmeyer, Katherine M. Bianchi, Daniel N. Wolfe, Utilization of Viral Vector Vaccines in Preparing for Future Pandemics, 2022, 10, 2076-393X, 436, 10.3390/vaccines10030436 | |
16. | Patrick J. Arena, Camille Dzogang, Adva Gadoth, Dalau Mukadi Nkamba, Nicole A. Hoff, David Kampilu, Michael Beia, Hui-Lee Wong, Steven A. Anderson, Didine Kaba, Anne W. Rimoin, Comparison of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes using archival medical records before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo: a facility-based, retrospective cohort study, 2023, 23, 1471-2393, 10.1186/s12884-022-05291-w | |
17. | Ozzie Anis, The Kivu Ebola Epidemic, 2022, 9, 20024436, 1, 10.15347/WJM/2022.001 | |
18. | Anne Hauner, Chukwuemeka Onwuchekwa, Kevin K. Ariën, Sample-to-result molecular diagnostic platforms and their suitability for infectious disease testing in low- and middle-income countries, 2024, 24, 1473-7159, 423, 10.1080/14737159.2024.2353690 | |
19. | Gnakub Norbert Soke, Peter Fonjungo, Gisele Mbuyi, Richard Luce, John Klena, Mary Choi, John Kombe, Gerry Makaya, Francis Mbuyi, Henriette Bulambo, Mathias Mossoko, Celestin Mwanzembe, Bienvenu Ikomo, Pierre Adikey, Joel Montgomery, Trevor Shoemaker, Placide Mbala, Giulia Earle-Richardson, Dieudonne Mwamba, Jean-Jacques Muyembe Tamfum, Continuous Community Engagement Is Needed to Improve Adherence to Ebola Response Activities and Survivorship During Ebola Outbreaks, 2024, 12, 2169-575X, e2300006, 10.9745/GHSP-D-23-00006 | |
20. | Abdihamid Warsame, Gwendolen Eamer, Alaria Kai, Lucia Robles Dios, Hana Rohan, Patrick Keating, Jacques Katshishi, Francesco Checchi, Performance of a safe and dignified burial intervention during an Ebola epidemic in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2018–2019, 2023, 21, 1741-7015, 10.1186/s12916-023-03194-x | |
21. | Rosine Ingabire, Julien Nyombayire, Amelia Mazzei, Jean-Baptiste Mazarati, Jozef Noben, Michael Katwere, Rachel Parker, Sabin Nsanzimana, Kristin M. Wall, Tyronza Sharkey, Felix Sayinzoga, Amanda Tichacek, Niina Hammoud, Ellen Martinson, Ben Magod, Susan Allen, Etienne Karita, Rebecca F. Grais, Contraception use and pregnancy in women receiving a 2-dose Ebola vaccine in Rwanda: A retrospective analysis of UMURINZI vaccination campaign data, 2025, 22, 1549-1676, e1004508, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004508 | |
22. | Marie Michele Umulisa, Aline Umutoni Uwizera, Nnamdi Ezeanochie, Jozef Noben, Ellen Pagan Indoe, Malick Kayumba, Rosette Busasa, Grace Umutoni, Alice Mushimiyimana, Philbert Kayitare, Roselyne Ingabire, Patience Sindayigaya, Roseline Dzekem Dine, Community members’ knowledge, attitude, and practices towards Ebola virus prevention in the Western Province of Rwanda, 2025, 44, 2072-1315, 10.1186/s41043-025-00741-5 |
Strains | Quantity of phosphate solubilized after 3 days T3 (ppm) |
Quantity of phosphate solubilized after 5 days QT5 (ppm) |
Quantity of phosphate solubilized after 7 days QT7 (ppm) |
AF15 | 2.43 ± 0.01d | 3.15 ± 0.01d | 4.32 ± 0.01d |
AF30 | 3.02 ± 0.01c | 4.22 ± 0.01c | 5.64 ± 0.01c |
AF60 | 4.07 ± 0.01b | 5.92 ± 0.01b | 6.36 ± 0.01b |
AF90 | 5.01 ± 0.01a | 6.63 ± 0.01a | 7.34 ± 0.01a |
Wild AF | 1.26 ± 0.01e | 2.68 ± 0.01e | 3.21 ± 0.01e |
Control | 0.52 ± 0.02f | 0.72 ± 0.01f | 1.27 ± 0.15f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 15 min); AF30: Mutated strain Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Fungal strains | GERMINATION % |
SHOOT LENGTH (30 DAP) (cm) |
PLANT HEIGHT (30 DAP) (cm) |
PLANTHEIGHT (60DAP) (cm) |
PLANT HEIGHT (90 DAP) (cm) |
NUMBER OF LEAVES (30 DAP) |
NUMBER OF LEAVES (60 DAP) |
NUMBER OF LEAVES (90 DAP) |
AF15 | 63.33 ± 3.05d | 9.16 ± 0.21d | 58.20 ± 0.10d | 76.20 ± 0.20d | 81.20 ± 0.20d | 8.17 ± 0.02d | 10.69 ± 0.06d | 11.17 ± 0.14d |
AF30 | 82.67 ± 3.05c | 11.50 ± 0.26c | 65.33 ± 0.31c | 83.46 ± 0.25c | 92.30 ± 0.31c | 8.23 ± 0.01c | 19.03 ± 0.03c | 12.10 ± 0.09c |
AF60 | 84.33 ± 4.04b | 12.43 ± 0.21b | 73.33 ± 0.20b | 94.36 ± 0.32b | 201.43 ± 0.21b | 9.02 ± 0.01b | 10.43 ± 0.20b | 14.14 ± 0.12b |
AF90 | 99.10 ± 1.0a | 14.30 ± 0.10a | 88.73 ± 0.64a | 127.40 ± 0.20a | 228.20 ± 0.2a | 9.22 ± 0.01a | 14.20 ± 0.15a | 16.84 ± 0.03a |
Wild AF | 60.66 ± 1.15e | 7.60 ± 0.26e | 53.10 ± 0.1e | 65.46 ± 0.32e | 78.56 ± 0.49e | 7.34 ± 0.02e | 9.18 ± 0.07e | 11.02 ± 0.03e |
Control | 43.33 ± 3.05f | 5.50 ± 0.26f | 45.23 ± 0.15f | 63.20 ± 0.20f | 73.40 ± 0.20f | 7.22 ± 0.02f | 8.14 ± 0.12f | 9.15 ± 0.11f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 15 min); AF30: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). %GERM: Percentage germination; SDLHT: Seedling heights; PLHT30: Plant height at 30 d of planting; PLHT60: Plant height at 60 d of planting; PLHT90: Plant height at 90 d of planting; NOLP30: Leaves number at 30 d of planting; NOLP60: Leaves number at 60 d of planting; NOLP90: Leaves number at 90 d of planting. The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Strains | Cob length (cm) | 100 grain weight (g) | Grain yield (g/pot) |
AF15 | 12.36 ± 0.15d | 151.60 ± 1.44d | 56.13 ± 0.70d |
AF30 | 13.30 ± 0.26c | 162.80 ± 0.72c | 59.13 ± 0.30c |
AF60 | 14.50 ± 0.15b | 172.06 ± 0.50b | 63.06 ± 0.31b |
AF90 | 15.30 ± 0.20a | 188.90 ± 0.65a | 76.06 ± 0.30a |
Wild AF | 11.56 ± 0.15e | 142.60 ± 0.41e | 46.01 ± 0.35e |
Control | 7.43 ± 0.20f | 81.06 ± 0.41f | 21.46 ± 0.15f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 15 min); AF30: Mutated strain Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Fungi strains | Zinc (Zn) (mg/Kg) Tasseling (leaves) |
Zinc (Zn) (mg/Kg) Harvest (whole plant) |
Iron (Fe) (mg/Kg) Tasseling (leaves) |
Iron (Fe) (mg/Kg) Harvest (whole plant) |
AF15 | 38.93 ± 0.46d | 35.11 ± 0.12d | 133.36 ± 0.58d | 120.76 ± 0.70d |
AF30 | 43.20 ± 0.41c | 40.22 ± 0.20c | 143.16 ± 0.37c | 126.13 ± 0.32c |
AF60 | 45.20 ± 0.40b | 41.21 ± 0.20b | 165.06 ± 0.59b | 133.40 ± 0.20b |
AF90 | 48.95 ± 0.47a | 45.01 ± 0.62a | 178.34 ± 0.41a | 142.20 ± 0.60a |
Wild AF | 37.06 ± 0.61e | 32.36 ± 0.40e | 121.33 ± 0.5e | 101.73 ± 0.70e |
Control | 21.73 ± 0.41f | 20.46 ± 0.41f | 89.13 ± 0.31f | 70.20 ± 0.31f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV15 min); AF30: Mutated strain Aspergillus flavus visible (UV30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Fungi strains | Nitrogen (N) % Tasseling (leaves) |
Nitrogen (N) % Harvest (whole plant) |
Phosphorus (P) % Tasseling (leaves) |
Phosphorus (P) % Harvest (whole plant) |
Potassium (K) % Tasseling (leaves) |
Potassium (K) % Harvest (whole plant) |
AF15 | 1.63 ± 0.02d | 0.52 ± 0.03d | 0.37 ± 0.02d | 0.29 ± 0.02d | 2.42 ± 0.02d | 1.61 ± 0.01d |
AF30 | 1.74 ± 0.02c | 0.63 ± 0.02c | 0.41 ± 0.01c | 0.32 ± 0.02c | 2.66 ± 0.03c | 1.94 ± 0.02c |
AF60 | 1.85 ± 0.03b | 0.95 ± 0.02b | 0.44 ± 0.03b | 0.37 ± 0.02b | 3.72 ± 0.02b | 2.13 ± 0.03b |
AF90 | 2.01 ± 0.07a | 0.98 ± 0.01a | 0.57 ± 0.01a | 0.42 ± 0.01a | 3.96 ± 0.01a | 2.83 ± 0.02a |
Wild AF | 1.54 ± 0.01e | 0.54 ± 0.02e | 0.36 ± 0.01e | 0.24 ± 0.01e | 2.04 ± 0.03e | 1.43 ± 0.02e |
Control | 1.43 ± 0.04f | 0.44 ± 0.02f | 0.31 ± 0.01f | 0.21 ± 0.01f | 1.97 ± 0.02f | 1.23 ± 0.01f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV15 min); AF30: Mutated strain Aspergillus flavus visible (UV30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Treatment | Phosphorus uptake (mg/pot) | Nitrogen uptake (mg/pot) | Potassium uptake (mg/pot) | Magnesium uptake (mg/pot) |
AF15 | 50.2 ± 0.20d | 273.66 ± 2.51d | 721.66 ± 1.52d | 153.66 ± 3.05d |
AF30 | 73.16 ± 0.21c | 294.66 ± 2.52c | 751.66 ± 2.08c | 162.66 ± 2.51c |
AF60 | 86.56 ± 0.15b | 361.33 ± 1.52b | 762.66 ± 2.51b | 173.33 ± 1.52b |
AF90 | 92.23 ± 0.21a | 376.66 ± 2.51a | 794.33 ± 1.53a | 185.66 ± 1.52a |
Wild AF | 47.30 ± 0.26e | 265.33 ± 2.51e | 603.33 ± 2.51e | 123.33 ± 2.51e |
Control | 23.36 ± 0.40f | 120.66 ± 1.53f | 403.00 ± 2.64f | 85.66 ± 3.21f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV15 min); AF30: Mutated strain Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Strains | Quantity of phosphate solubilized after 3 days T3 (ppm) |
Quantity of phosphate solubilized after 5 days QT5 (ppm) |
Quantity of phosphate solubilized after 7 days QT7 (ppm) |
AF15 | 2.43 ± 0.01d | 3.15 ± 0.01d | 4.32 ± 0.01d |
AF30 | 3.02 ± 0.01c | 4.22 ± 0.01c | 5.64 ± 0.01c |
AF60 | 4.07 ± 0.01b | 5.92 ± 0.01b | 6.36 ± 0.01b |
AF90 | 5.01 ± 0.01a | 6.63 ± 0.01a | 7.34 ± 0.01a |
Wild AF | 1.26 ± 0.01e | 2.68 ± 0.01e | 3.21 ± 0.01e |
Control | 0.52 ± 0.02f | 0.72 ± 0.01f | 1.27 ± 0.15f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 15 min); AF30: Mutated strain Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Fungal strains | GERMINATION % |
SHOOT LENGTH (30 DAP) (cm) |
PLANT HEIGHT (30 DAP) (cm) |
PLANTHEIGHT (60DAP) (cm) |
PLANT HEIGHT (90 DAP) (cm) |
NUMBER OF LEAVES (30 DAP) |
NUMBER OF LEAVES (60 DAP) |
NUMBER OF LEAVES (90 DAP) |
AF15 | 63.33 ± 3.05d | 9.16 ± 0.21d | 58.20 ± 0.10d | 76.20 ± 0.20d | 81.20 ± 0.20d | 8.17 ± 0.02d | 10.69 ± 0.06d | 11.17 ± 0.14d |
AF30 | 82.67 ± 3.05c | 11.50 ± 0.26c | 65.33 ± 0.31c | 83.46 ± 0.25c | 92.30 ± 0.31c | 8.23 ± 0.01c | 19.03 ± 0.03c | 12.10 ± 0.09c |
AF60 | 84.33 ± 4.04b | 12.43 ± 0.21b | 73.33 ± 0.20b | 94.36 ± 0.32b | 201.43 ± 0.21b | 9.02 ± 0.01b | 10.43 ± 0.20b | 14.14 ± 0.12b |
AF90 | 99.10 ± 1.0a | 14.30 ± 0.10a | 88.73 ± 0.64a | 127.40 ± 0.20a | 228.20 ± 0.2a | 9.22 ± 0.01a | 14.20 ± 0.15a | 16.84 ± 0.03a |
Wild AF | 60.66 ± 1.15e | 7.60 ± 0.26e | 53.10 ± 0.1e | 65.46 ± 0.32e | 78.56 ± 0.49e | 7.34 ± 0.02e | 9.18 ± 0.07e | 11.02 ± 0.03e |
Control | 43.33 ± 3.05f | 5.50 ± 0.26f | 45.23 ± 0.15f | 63.20 ± 0.20f | 73.40 ± 0.20f | 7.22 ± 0.02f | 8.14 ± 0.12f | 9.15 ± 0.11f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 15 min); AF30: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). %GERM: Percentage germination; SDLHT: Seedling heights; PLHT30: Plant height at 30 d of planting; PLHT60: Plant height at 60 d of planting; PLHT90: Plant height at 90 d of planting; NOLP30: Leaves number at 30 d of planting; NOLP60: Leaves number at 60 d of planting; NOLP90: Leaves number at 90 d of planting. The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Strains | Cob length (cm) | 100 grain weight (g) | Grain yield (g/pot) |
AF15 | 12.36 ± 0.15d | 151.60 ± 1.44d | 56.13 ± 0.70d |
AF30 | 13.30 ± 0.26c | 162.80 ± 0.72c | 59.13 ± 0.30c |
AF60 | 14.50 ± 0.15b | 172.06 ± 0.50b | 63.06 ± 0.31b |
AF90 | 15.30 ± 0.20a | 188.90 ± 0.65a | 76.06 ± 0.30a |
Wild AF | 11.56 ± 0.15e | 142.60 ± 0.41e | 46.01 ± 0.35e |
Control | 7.43 ± 0.20f | 81.06 ± 0.41f | 21.46 ± 0.15f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 15 min); AF30: Mutated strain Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Fungi strains | Zinc (Zn) (mg/Kg) Tasseling (leaves) |
Zinc (Zn) (mg/Kg) Harvest (whole plant) |
Iron (Fe) (mg/Kg) Tasseling (leaves) |
Iron (Fe) (mg/Kg) Harvest (whole plant) |
AF15 | 38.93 ± 0.46d | 35.11 ± 0.12d | 133.36 ± 0.58d | 120.76 ± 0.70d |
AF30 | 43.20 ± 0.41c | 40.22 ± 0.20c | 143.16 ± 0.37c | 126.13 ± 0.32c |
AF60 | 45.20 ± 0.40b | 41.21 ± 0.20b | 165.06 ± 0.59b | 133.40 ± 0.20b |
AF90 | 48.95 ± 0.47a | 45.01 ± 0.62a | 178.34 ± 0.41a | 142.20 ± 0.60a |
Wild AF | 37.06 ± 0.61e | 32.36 ± 0.40e | 121.33 ± 0.5e | 101.73 ± 0.70e |
Control | 21.73 ± 0.41f | 20.46 ± 0.41f | 89.13 ± 0.31f | 70.20 ± 0.31f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV15 min); AF30: Mutated strain Aspergillus flavus visible (UV30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Fungi strains | Nitrogen (N) % Tasseling (leaves) |
Nitrogen (N) % Harvest (whole plant) |
Phosphorus (P) % Tasseling (leaves) |
Phosphorus (P) % Harvest (whole plant) |
Potassium (K) % Tasseling (leaves) |
Potassium (K) % Harvest (whole plant) |
AF15 | 1.63 ± 0.02d | 0.52 ± 0.03d | 0.37 ± 0.02d | 0.29 ± 0.02d | 2.42 ± 0.02d | 1.61 ± 0.01d |
AF30 | 1.74 ± 0.02c | 0.63 ± 0.02c | 0.41 ± 0.01c | 0.32 ± 0.02c | 2.66 ± 0.03c | 1.94 ± 0.02c |
AF60 | 1.85 ± 0.03b | 0.95 ± 0.02b | 0.44 ± 0.03b | 0.37 ± 0.02b | 3.72 ± 0.02b | 2.13 ± 0.03b |
AF90 | 2.01 ± 0.07a | 0.98 ± 0.01a | 0.57 ± 0.01a | 0.42 ± 0.01a | 3.96 ± 0.01a | 2.83 ± 0.02a |
Wild AF | 1.54 ± 0.01e | 0.54 ± 0.02e | 0.36 ± 0.01e | 0.24 ± 0.01e | 2.04 ± 0.03e | 1.43 ± 0.02e |
Control | 1.43 ± 0.04f | 0.44 ± 0.02f | 0.31 ± 0.01f | 0.21 ± 0.01f | 1.97 ± 0.02f | 1.23 ± 0.01f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV15 min); AF30: Mutated strain Aspergillus flavus visible (UV30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |
Treatment | Phosphorus uptake (mg/pot) | Nitrogen uptake (mg/pot) | Potassium uptake (mg/pot) | Magnesium uptake (mg/pot) |
AF15 | 50.2 ± 0.20d | 273.66 ± 2.51d | 721.66 ± 1.52d | 153.66 ± 3.05d |
AF30 | 73.16 ± 0.21c | 294.66 ± 2.52c | 751.66 ± 2.08c | 162.66 ± 2.51c |
AF60 | 86.56 ± 0.15b | 361.33 ± 1.52b | 762.66 ± 2.51b | 173.33 ± 1.52b |
AF90 | 92.23 ± 0.21a | 376.66 ± 2.51a | 794.33 ± 1.53a | 185.66 ± 1.52a |
Wild AF | 47.30 ± 0.26e | 265.33 ± 2.51e | 603.33 ± 2.51e | 123.33 ± 2.51e |
Control | 23.36 ± 0.40f | 120.66 ± 1.53f | 403.00 ± 2.64f | 85.66 ± 3.21f |
Notes: Wild AF: Wild type Aspergillus flavus; AF15: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV15 min); AF30: Mutated strain Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 30 min); AF60: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 60 min); AF90: Mutated strain of Aspergillus flavus visible (UV 90 min). The different alphabet indicates significant difference compared to control pot without fungi inoculation. |