Weeds as a source of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in agricultural soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of plant growth promoting (PGP) activity of bacterial communities recovered from each of six weed species (barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusfalli (L.) Beauv.), corn spurrey (Spergula arvensis L.), goldenrod (Sonchus sp.), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum L.), lamb's-quarters (Chenopodium album L.), and quack grass (Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv.)) was examined in relation to the effect it had on the growth of the potato cultivar Russet Burbank. Bacterial species composition and community structure were compared, species-abundance relationships were determined, and those members conferring positive benefits for potato growth and development were identified. Of the genera identified, Bacillus, Arthrobacter, Stenotrophomonas, Acinetobacter, and Pseudomonas were the most common, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia was the most frequent species recovered across all sources. Significantly higher population densities were found in the root zones of quack grass, compared with Italian ryegrass and lamb's-quarters. There were no significant differences in species richness among the root zones; however, evenness indices (species distribution) were significantly lower in corn spurrey (P = 0.05). Significantly higher diversity indices (Hill-1 and Hill-2 numbers) (P = 0.05) were found in the root zone soil communities of potato and goldenrod, indicating a decrease in the proportional abundance of common and very abundant species, respectively, while in barnyard grass, corn spurrey, and Italian ryegrass the reverse was the case. In both years of the study, Italian ryegrass and corn spurrey were consistently better sources of PGP rhizobacteria for potatoes, significantly (P < 0.001) increasing the mean wet weight of shoots and roots in in vitro bacterization studies. Barnyard grass was a consistently poor source of such isolates. Species-abundance measures of root zone bacterial biodiversity were not found, in this instance, to be a particularly good predictor of the presence or absence of PGP rhizobacteria. We consider that the study of complementary crops and soil-conditioning treatments should not preclude the examination of weed species as possible beneficials, as alterations in rhizobacterial biodiversity and functional versatility can influence the numbers and types of PGP bacterial strains, and consequently may serve to improve soil quality.
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".