Survival and colonization of rhizobacteria in a tomato transplant system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) are used on crops most often as seed treatments; however, an alternative application method for transplanted vegetables is mixing PGPR into the soilless medium in which the transplants are grown. Studies were undertaken to compare root colonization and persistence of rifampicin-resistant mutants of PGPR strains Bacillus pumilus SE34 and Pseudomonas fluorescens 89B61, SE34r and 89B61r, on tomato as a function of application method. When the bacteria were incorporated into Promix soilless medium at log 6, 7, and 8 colony- forming units/g, populations of strain SE34r per gram of medium maintained the initial inoculum densities, while populations of 89B61r decreased approximately one to two orders of magnitude by 4 weeks after planting. The populations of each PGPR strain colonizing roots after application into the soilless medium showed a similar pattern at 6 weeks as that at 4 weeks after planting, with higher populations on the whole roots and lateral roots than on the taproots. Strain SE34r but not 89B61r moved upwards and colonized the phyllosphere when incorporated into the soilless medium. Following application as seed treatment, populations of SE34r were significantly higher on upper roots and on the taproot than were populations following application through the soilless medium. Conversely, populations were higher on lower roots and lateral roots following application through the soilless medium than were populations following application as seed treatment. While strain SE34 enhanced plant growth with application both to the medium and as seed treatment, the level of growth promotion was significantly greater with application in the soilless medium. The results indicate that PGPR can be successfully incorporated into soilless media in vegetable transplant production systems.
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".