Chitin-supplemented formulations improve biocontrol and plant growth promoting efficiency of<i>Bacillus subtilis</i>AF 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formulations of a chitinolytic biocontrol and a plant growth promoting Bacillus subtilis AF 1 were prepared in peat, in peat supplemented with either 0.5% chitin or Aspergillus niger mycelium, or in spent compost obtained from Agaricus bisporus cultivation and were evaluated for biocontrol of two fungal pathogens and plant growth promoting activities on pigeon pea and groundnut. A steady increase in cell numbers of introduced B. subtilis AF 1 was observed in all the formulations at 30 degrees C. The increase in cell numbers was about 5.0 log units. Peat or spent compost inoculated with physiologically active and dormant states of B. subtilis AF 1 showed different time period requirements to attain maximum cell numbers. The presence of chitin or A. niger (in peat) or A. bisporus (in spent compost) as supplement in the carrier material improved the multiplication of B. subtilis AF 1. When used as seed treatments, formulations of AF 1 in peat supplemented with chitin or chitin-containing materials showed better control of A. niger (causing crown rot of groundnut) and Fusarium udum (causing wilt of pigeon pea) than AF 1 culture alone, in both groundnut and pigeon pea. Bacillus subtilis AF 1 formulations promoted seed germination and biomass of both groundnut and pigeon pea even under pathogen pressure. Survival of AF 1 on fresh culture-treated and formulation product-treated plants was similar in pathogen-infested soil.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".