Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Evaluation of the bacteria formulation different inoculum densities on growth and development of Euphorbia pulcherrima Cover

Evaluation of the bacteria formulation different inoculum densities on growth and development of Euphorbia pulcherrima

Folia Horticulturae
Volume 32 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)
By:   
Open Access
|Sep 2020
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Bacterial isolates used in the study and some biochemical properties (Kotan et al., 2014)

Isolate NoMIS diagnosis resultSIMLocation (in Turkey)HostNitrogenPhosphate
TV-91CBacillus megaterium0.474VanPoaceae+W+
TV-113CKluyvera cryocrescens0.688VanGarlic++
RK-92Pantoea agglomerans0.889ErzurumPear+S

[i] SIM, similarity index; s, strong +; w, weak +, +, positive; −, negative.

Table 2

Concentrations of bacterial formulation used in the study and their treatments codes

TreatmentsThe amount taken from the suspension of each bacteria strain (mL)The total amount of formulation (mL)The amount of water (mL)
Control0.00.01,000.0
T117.552.5947.5
T235.0105.0895.0
T370.0210.0790.0
T4140.0420.0580.0
T5280.0840.0160.0
Figure 1

The appearance of (different concentrations of bacterial formulation)-treatment and control plants on day 160.

Table 3

Differences in the green leaves number, bract leaves number, plant height, main flower stalk length and size of bract crown of poinsettias subject to different doses of PGPR formulation in the pot experiment

TreatmentsGreen leaves (no.)Bract leaves (no.)Plant height (cm)Main flower stalk length (cm)Size of bract crown (cm)
Means ± SD
Control4.92 ± 0.58 bc*9.25 ± 1.09 cd***17.59 ± 1.18 cd**7.87 ± 0.62 cd**13.38 ± 1.16 b**
T14.47 ± 1.79 c7.22 ± 0.84 e15.87 ± 1.87 d7.33 ± 1.98 d12.30 ± 2.23 b
T27.14 ± 0.55 a8.36 ± 0.88 de16.85 ± 1.28 d8.03 ± 0.79 cd13.68 ± 2.12 b
T36.03 ± 0.68 abc10.92 ± 0.88 b19.35 ± 1.24 c9.55 ± 1.06 bc16.30 ± 1.17 a
T46.75 ± 0.90 ab10.36 ± 0.38 bc21.93 ± 1.05 b11.37 ± 1.02 ab16.55 ± 0.35 a
T57.92 ± 1.46 a12.42 ± 0.80 a24.99 ± 0.80 a12.49 ± 0.85 a18.10 ± 0.15 a
Mean6.20 ± 1.559.75 ± 1.8919.43 ± 3.429.44 ± 2.1915.05 ± 2.43

[i] Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) based on Duncan's multiple range test.

[ii] SD, standard deviation.

[iii] *, **, *** significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001, respectively.

Figure 2

Differences in the root parameters of poinsettia subject to different doses of PGPR formulation. Error bars represent SD and data in the graphs are the means ± standard deviation.

Table 4

The effect of different doses of PGPR formulation on bract diameter, main stem diameter, relative chlorophyll content, green leaf and bract leaf area in the pot experiment

TreatmentsBract diameter (cm)Main stem diameter (mm)Relative chlorophyll content (SPAD)Green leaf area (cm2)Bract leaf area (cm2)
Means ± SD
Control19.12 ± 1.46 bc*4.42 ± 0.23 ns42.00 ± 2.76 b*10.34 ± 0.74 c***67.16 ± 9.04 c**
T116.95 ± 2.14 c4.93 ± 0.4252.67 ± 2.46 a8.66 ± 1.10 c77.56 ± 2.36 b
T218.23 ± 2.90 bc5.00 ± 0.4550.27 ± 1.12 a9.86 ± 0.76 c78.07 ± 2.24 b
T319.45 ± 4.33 bc5.19 ± 0.4049.97 ± 6.07 a15.14 ± 0.93 b78.53 ± 2.14 b
T422.13 ± 0.51 ab4.73 ± 0.7350.27 ± 2.18 a17.86 ± 1.51 a86.95 ± 1.77 a
T525.33 ± 0.63 a5.45 ± 0.1648.73 ± 1.17 a18.61 ± 1.39 a87.29 ± 0.99 a
Mean20.20 ± 3.494.95 ± 0.5048.98 ± 4.3113.41 ± 4.1979.26 ± 7.77

[i] Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) based on Duncan's multiple range test.

[ii] ns, non-significant; SD, standard deviation.

[iii] *, **, *** significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001, respectively.

Table 5

The effect of different doses of PGPR formulation on NRA and GS activity in the pot experiment

TreatmentsNRA (EU g · tissue−1)GS (μmol γ-glutamyl hydroxamate formed · g−1 · min−1)
Means ± SD
Control4.03 ± 0.98 d***0.23 ± 0.01 c***
T16.32 ± 0.70 c0.23 ± 0.00 c
T26.99 ± 0.31 bc0.23 ± 0.00 c
T37.89 ± 0.94 b0.26 ± 0.01 b
T47.07 ± 0.98 bc0.27 ± 0.01 a
T59.63 ± 0.46 a0.25 ± 0.01 b
Mean6.99 ± 1.850.24 ± 0.01

[i] Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) based on Duncan's multiple range test.

[ii] SD, standard deviation.

[iii] *** significant at p ≤ 0.001.

Table 6

The effect of different doses of PGPR formulation on plant fresh and dry weight, the total nitrogen content of leaf and root in the pot experiment

TreatmentsPlant fresh weight (g · plant−1)Plant dry weight (g · plant−1)Total N of leaf (%)Total N of root (%)
Means ± SD
Control16.00 ± 3.69 c***2.56 ± 0.68 b***5.84 ± 0.13 c***1.85 ± 0.05 ns
T117.81 ± 4.94 c2.91 ± 1.04 b6.47 ± 0.07 b1.90 ± 0.03
T214.10 ± 3.09 c2.54 ± 0.80 b6.80 ± 0.06 a1.85 ± 0.04
T320.08 ± 4.23 c3.29 ± 0.71 b5.12 ± 0.30 e1.86 ± 0.03
T428.86 ± 4.47 b4.76 ± 0.82 a5.46 ± 0.24 d1.90 ± 0.07
T537.89 ± 4.80 a6.07 ± 0.21 a6.90 ± 0.06 a1.95 ± 0.04
Mean22.46 ± 9.303.69 ± 1.486.10 ± 0.701.88 ± 0.06

[i] Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) based on Duncan's multiple range test.

[ii] ns, non-significant; SD, standard deviation.

[iii] *** significant at p ≤ 0.001.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2020-0017 | Journal eISSN: 2083-5965 | Journal ISSN: 0867-1761
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 179 - 188
Submitted on: Mar 30, 2020
Accepted on: Aug 14, 2020
Published on: Sep 10, 2020
Published by: Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
Euphorbia pulcherrima Willd. ex Klotzsch,
fleshy bracts,
glutamine synthetase activity,
nitrate reductase activity,
ornamental plant,
poinsettia,
rhizobacteria formulation
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Plant science

© 2020 Fazilet Parlakova Karagöz, published by Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 32 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)
Previous article
Next article