Printer Friendly

Evaluation of drought resistance and yield in PGPR-primed seeds of Festuca arundinacea Schreb under different levels of osmotic potential and field capacity.

Drought stress is common in many parts of the world, and more than 50 % of the globe is arid, semiarid, or subjected to some kind of drought stress (Mayaka et al., 2004). Crop production in arid and semi-arid regions is restricted by soil salinity and soil deficiencies in moisture (ELSiddig et al., 1998; Pessarakli, 2001). Growth reduction under drought stress conditions has been well characterized in several plant species, such as rice, barley, maize, and wheat (Kasim et al., 2013). At present, the use of biological approaches is becoming more popular as an additive to chemical fertilizers for improving crop yield in an integrated plant nutrient management system. In this regard, the use of PGPR has found a potential role in developing sustainable systems in crop production (Sturz et al., 2000; Shoebitz et al., 2009). Many studies have reported on the efficiency of PGPR under determined conditions in protecting plants from the deleterious effects of environmental stresses (Enebak et al., 1997; Glick et al., 1997; Timmusk and Wagner, 1999). Timmusk and Wagner (1999) were the first persons who show that inoculation of Paenibacillus polymyxa confers drought tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana through the induction of drought-responsive gene ERD15. Inoculation of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens 5113 and Azospirillum brasilense NO40 significantly alleviated the deleterious effect of drought stress on wheat (Kasim et al., 2013). In addition, moisture stress at any stage of crop growth can cause an irreversible loss in yield potential (Reginato, 1993). One pragmatic approach to increase crop production is seed invigoration (Basra et al., 2004; Farooq et al., 2006; Lee and Kim, 2000). Seed invigoration strategies include hydropriming, osmoconditioning, osmohardening, hardening, hormonal-priming, matripriming, and others (Chiu et al., 2002; Kao et al., 2005; Windauer et al., 2007).

Priming offers a means to raise seed performance in many crop species (Chiu et al., 2002). Heydecker et al. (1973) defined seed priming as a pre-sowing treatment in osmotic solution that allows seeds to imbibe water to proceed to the first stage of germination. Taylor et al. (1998) used a broader term, seed enhancement, which includes presoaking hydration (priming), coating technologies, and seed conditioning. Therefore, seed priming can be accomplished through different methods such as hydro priming(soaking in water), osmopriming (soaking in osmotic solutions such as polyethylene glycol, potassium salts, e.g. KCl, K2SO4) solid matrix priming, and using plant growth regulators(PGRs) (Capron et al., 2000; Chiu et al., 2002; Dearman et al., 1987; Harris et al., 2002). Priming has been known as a viable technology to enhance rapid and uniform emergence, high vigor, and better yields mostly in vegetable and flower species (Bruggink et al., 1999; Dearman et al., 1987; Parera and Cantliffe, 1994) and some field crops (Basra et al., 1988; Chiu et al., 2002; Giri and Schillinger, 2003; Harris, 1999; Hartz and Caprile, 1995; Murungu et al., 2004). Seed priming has been a common seed treatment to reduce the time between seed sowing and seedling emergence and the synchronization of emergence (Parera and Cantliffe, 1994).

Forages are the backbone of sustainable agriculture and contribute extensively to the world economy (Barnes and Baylor, 1995). On a worldwide basis, grassland acreage is estimated to be twice that of cropland (Jauhar 1993). Tall fescue (F arundinacea) is a cool-season forage grass that is widely grown throughout the temperate regions of the world (Sleper, 1985). It is the most important perennial forage species of the genus Fistula (Malay et al., 2005). Tall fescue (F. arundinacea) is native to Europe and North Africa (Hannaway et al., 1999). The use of tall fescue in forage, soil conservation and turf increased dramatically during the early 1980s (Sleper and West 1996). Tall fescue grows naturally in pastures in the northern, central and western of Iran, it plays an important role in the production of forage and soil conservation. Although tall fescue cultivation is not common in Iran, but it has large potential for the production of crops and pasture forage (Sharifi Tehrani et al., 2009)

This study evaluated the effectiveness of (i) bio-priming method on the species F. arundinacea Schreb using inoculation of Azotobacter and Azospirillum at different levels of osmotic pressure which is under drought stress and (ii) the effectiveness of bio-priming of Azotobacter compared with the effectiveness Azospirillum on F. arundinacea Schreb.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was carried out as a factorial experiment based on completely randomized design (CRD) with three factors and three replacing in greenhouse of Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Azad University of Iran, during 2014. Tall fescue (F. arundinacea) seeds were purchased from Pakan Seed Company of Isfahan. Bio-priming method is considered as one of the most common methods for seed priming. Tall fescue seed biopriming carried out with -0.5, -1, -1.5 and -2 Mpa osmotic potential. This osmotic potentials had been used in previous studies on various grasses (Hardegree & Emmerich, 2000, Hardegree & Van Vactor, 2000). Time priming, according to studies Hardegree et al. (2002), was chosen 2 and 4 days in order to verify the short and long term effects of bio-

priming. The first factor was seed bio-priming with Azotobacter and the second factor was biopriming with Azospirillum at -0.5, -1, -1.5 and - 2 Mpa osmotic potentials levels and control (C1 and C2 without bio-priming). Poly ethylene glycol 6000 used to create osmotic potential.

Preparation of bio-osmotic solution priming

Michel and Kaufmann (1972) stated that the effects of concentration and temperature on osmotic potential of PEG-6000 solutions differ from those for most salts and sugars and apparently are related to structural changes in the PEG polymer and an empirical equation (Equation 1) permits calculation of Osmotic potential; from known concentrations of PEG-6000 over a temperature range of 15 to 35 C. Viscometery and gravimetric analysis are convenient methods by which the concentrations of PEG-6000 solutions may be measured. In this study, equation 1 was used to determine the exact amount of osmotic potential. [PSI] = -(1.18 x [10.sup.-2]) C - (1.18 x [10.sup.-4]) [C.sup.2] + (2.67 x [10.sup.-4]) CT + (8.39 x [10.sup.-7]) C2T ... (1)

[PSI] = osmotic potential of PEG-6000

C = Weight of PEG-6000 in grams in a kilogram of water

T = the temperature of the solution to C[degrees]

Preparation of seed samples

Mass of seeds were randomly selected and weighed and poured into mesh bag. The two bags seeds were considered as controls that kept at 20[degrees]C, and the remaining bags were used for priming. The seeds were rinsed with distilled water for two minutes and seed were air dried until the moisture level comes back to its original. Inoculation process was carried out using rhizobacteria powder that was prepared by the Institute of Soil and Water Research in Tehran. Plastic pots with 19 cm height and 15 cm diameter was prepared, drainage of the pots was normal. A height of 16.5 cm of soil was placed in each pot; this was in accordance with the winter wheat seed priming that was done by Giri and Schillinger (2003). Each pot was consisted of three parts: sand, soil and leaf soil with ratio of 2, 1 and 1 respectively. There were sprayed 25 seeds in each pot evenly. The seeds were covered with 1.5 cm of soil and pressed a little. The pots were placed in greenhouse at 20[degrees]C in several completely random rows. With regard to the water holding capacity in pots, drought stress was considered as third factor. Four levels of drought stress, in the amount of 100% of field capacity (without stress)--75%, 50% and 25% of field capacity, were applied.

The amount of drought stress according to water holding capacity of the soil in each pot was reviewed and applied every day. According to the last day of counting, emergence percentage was calculated for each treatment. Emergence rate was calculated using equation (2)

GR = [[summation].sup.n.sub.i=1][n/t] ...(2)

n is the number of grown seeds in time t and t is the number of days since the start of experiment(Reyes et al, 2002).

Mean germination time was calculated using equation (3)

MGT = [A.sub.1][D.sub.1][A.sub.2][D.sub.2][A.sub.n][D.sub.n]/[A.sub.1][A.sub.2] ... [A.sub.n] (3)

A is the number of seeds that germinated during the D and n is the number of days until the last day of counting (Cantliffe, 1991).

Three months after planting, 10 plants were randomly selected from each pot and stem length was measured. Wet and dry biomass of stems were measured with a digital scale.

To determine the root biomass, pots were shaken in the water for a long time, the soil and other materials were removed from the root. Fresh weight of separated roots was measured after the initial impounding.

The analysis of variance of the data was performed using SPSS and MSTATC software and if the variance was significant, mean comparison with Duncan's multiple range test was performed at p = 5%.

RESULTS

Analysis of variance main effects, biopriming and levels of drought stress and the interaction effects between the treatments' biopriming at stress levels showed significant differences in studied traits in F. arundinacea species (Table 1).Comparison of the mean length of roots and shoots of the main effects of treatments bio-priming on F.arundinacea species is presented in Figure 1. The maximum length of shoot (34.37 cm) obtained by 5.1 MPa Azospirillium brasilense treatment for 4 days. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05) with the control. The minimum shoot length (28.13 cm) related to the control treatment. The maximum length of the roots (29.23 cm) obtained by the treatment of Azotobacter 2 MPa for 4 days, which was significantly different from control treatment (22.96 cm). Minimum root length (22.95 cm) created by the treatment of Azospirillium brasilense 2 MPa for 4 days; it not showed significant different compared with control. Root length of the other treatments of Azospirillium 2 MPa for 4 days showed higher mean value than the control.

Comparison of the main effects of biopriming treatments on fresh weight root is presented in Fig 2A. The highest fresh root weight (44 g) was obtained in the treatment of Azotobacter 0.5 MPa for 4 days. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05) with the control. This treatment didn't show significant difference by fresh root weight compared with treatments of Azotobacter 5.0 MPa for 2 days (39.40 gr), Azotobacter 1 MPa for 4 days (42.91 gr), Azotobacter 2 MPa for 2 days (29.75 gr), and azosprilium 1 MPa for 2 and 4 days by values of 35.5gr and 29.45 gr. Treatment of control didn't show significant difference with treatments of Azospirillium 0.5 MPa for 2 days and Azotobacter 2 MPa for 4 days. Difference was significant with other treatments.

Figure 2B offers emergence percentage of the seeds in the treatments. The highest emergence percentage (53%) was obtained by the Azotobacter 0.5 MPa for 2 days. it showed significant difference than treatments of the control (39.5%) and Azotobacter 2 MPa for 2 days.

Difference was not significant between the Azotobacter 0.5 MPa for 2 days compared with Azospirillium 0.5 MPa for 2 and 4 days, the Azospirillium 1.5 MPa for 2 days and Azospirillium 2 MPa for 2 and 4 days, however the impact of these treatments was higher than control. Lowest emergence percentage (36%) was created by Azotobacter 1.5 Mpa for 2 days, there was not significant difference compared to control.

Figure 3 provided comparison of the effects of drought stress (based on field capacity) in shoot and root length, and fresh shoot and root weight. The figure shows a decreasing trend with increasing drought stress in all traits. With increase in stress level reduction trend in the fresh weight of root was more severe compared with other traits.

Fig3. Comparison of the mean ([+ or -] standard error) the effects of drought stress (based on field capacity) in root and shoot length (cm) and fresh root and stem weight (gr) F. arundinacea species.

Bio-priming treatments comparing means of interactions at the level of drought stress in stem length are presented in Table 1. Stem length (34.33 cm) was highest at 100% of field capacity (without stress) and treatment of Azotobacter 2 MPa for 4 days. This treatment had significant difference compared with control treatment and other treatments; also its effect was incremental at all levels of drought stress. Minimum stem length (18.16 cm) related to drought stress treatment 25% of field capacity of Azotobacter 0.5 MPa for 4 days. This treatment didn't show significant difference with control. The mean stem length of bio-priming treatments was higher than the control.

Comparing the means of interaction effects of bio- priming treatments in levels of drought stress in stem and root length and fresh shoot weight is presented in Table 1. The stem length was higher at 100% of field capacity (without stress). The highest amount of stem length (34.33 cm) at 100% of field capacity (without stress) related to the treatment of Azotobacter 2 MPa for 4 days. This treatment showed significant difference compared with control and many other treatments of different drought stress levels. The stem length was less of drought stress at 25% of field capacity. The lowest stem length (18.16 cm) related to Azotobacter treatment of 5.0 MPa for 4 days. This treatment showed no significant difference with control of drought stress at 25% of field capacity.

Comparing the means of fresh shoot weight (table 1) indicates that fresh shoot weight is higher in 100% of field capacity (without stress). Highest fresh shoot weight (45.33) obtained in 100% of field capacity by the treatment Azotobacter 2 MPa for 2 days, and had significant difference compared with the control. The minimum fresh shoot weight was related to drought stress at 25% of field capacity. Shoot fresh weight (11.66) was the lowest in Azotobacter treatment of 5.0 MPa for 4 days. For this treatment difference was not statistically significant compared with the control.

Comparing the means of root length (table 1) indicated that the impacts are higher in 100% of field capacity (without stress). The highest root length (41.72 cm) observed in 100% of field capacity by Azospirillium treatment 1.5 MPa for 4 days. This treatment caused statistically significant difference compared with the control and other treatments in different levels of drought stress. The minimum root length was obtained in the drought stress with 50% of field capacity. The treatment Azotobacter 0.5MPa for 2 days created lowest root length (25.35) at drought stress with 50 % of field capacity. There was no significant difference compared with the control.

DISCUSSIONS

Plants are constantly exposed to abiotic stresses, among which drought is a major limiting factor for growth and crop production because it can elicit various biochemical and physiological reactions (Glick, 2004). Abiotic stress tolerance in PGPR has been studied to provide a biological understanding of the adaptation and survival of rhizobacteria under stress conditions (Arkhipova et al., 2007; Creus et al., 1998). Priming is an important mechanism of various induced resistance phenomena in plants (JM Beckers and Conrath, 2007).

Seed priming has been shown to advance germination and emergence rate for many agricultural plant species (e.g. Brocklehurst et al., 1984; Helsel et al., 1986; Alvarado et al., 1987; Evans and Pill, 1989; Bradford et al., 1990; Khan et al., 1992; Suzuki and Obayashi, 1994; Yamamoto et al., 1997). Studies of rangeland species are more limited. There is little knowledge about the response of microorganisms when released at water absorption conditions by seeds(Okon & Labandera-Gonzalez, 1994). In this study, root length improved in culture conditions the pot of F. arundinacea. Most of the compounds of biopriming treatments effectively and significantly increased in root length. Root length can be considered as a factor affecting for improvement yield in drought stress conditions. In drought stress conditions, increasing the length and extent of the root will be able to guarantee plant survival. Azotobacter and Azospirillum bacteria caused the root length improved in the application drought stress conditions. Combination of priming with plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPR) showed that the root length of F. arundinacea increased drought stress conditions. In this species, treatment Azospirillum 1.5 Mpa for 4 days, compared with the other bio-prime treatments and decreasing trend that occured as a result of drought stress was appropriate treatment. Ahmad et al., (2005) pointed out that Azotobacter by secretion of indole acetic acid increased the root length. Many of the studies reported effect of inoculation with bacteria on the growth root growth is increasing root length such as increase the number root, dry root weight and increase cell division in the root meristem (Arsac et al., 1990[degrees] Levanony & Bashan, 1989). In this study, the most dry and fresh weight of the roots in the F. arundinacea was obtained by inoculation Azotobacter treatment. Fulchieri et al., (1993) reported that Azotobacter, by the production of gibberellin, caused the development root and its weight.

Bashan, (1986) and Kucey, (1988) in their study pointed out that root biomass of plants inoculated with Azosprillum is less compared with plants inoculated with Azotobacter. Although the researchers reported that increasing indices of stem growth with Azosprillum inoculation is more than Azotobacte.

Weight producted biomass from forage plants is an important index to improve the performance especially under stress conditions. In fact, the increase in weight per unit area of forage is considered as one of the symptoms management quality. Reduce application chemical fertilizers are an important indicator in the sustainable management, it obtained by biological fertilizers replacing. Interest in the use of biological methods instead of chemicals to fertilize the soil, and improve plant resistance against pathogens is currently growing.

The results showed that the bio-priming treatments significantly increased biomass production. Based on the results the Azotobacter in additive effects was better than Azosprillum in the F. arundinacea.

The use of plant growth promoting bacteria leads to several natural ways growth including non-symbiotic nitrogen fixation (Boddey & Do bereiner, 1988), increase the solubility of phosphorus (Reyes et al., 2002), Production of phytohormones (Bent et al., 2001), and production of various compounds (e.g., antibiotics and lytic enzymes) with antipathogenic properties (Romero et al., 2007). Despite the decrease in fresh and dry weight of shoot with increased drought stress, decreasing trend in seeds treated with Azosprillum and Azotobacter was significantly lower compared with the control. This could be considered as useful way to increase biomass production in F. arundinacea. These results are consistent with findings of Nanda et al., (1995) in the increasing fresh and dry weight of corn seed inoculation with bacteria, Azotobacter and Azospirillum, Youssef et al., (2004) in the increasing fresh and dry weight of Salvia officinalis seed inoculation with bacteria, Azotobacter and Azospirillum and the research results Chabot et al., (1993) and Zahir et al., (2000), which reported inoculated Azosprillum increased corn shoot dry weight. Increasing the germination and emergence is known as the most important capabilities of priming (Heydecker & Coolbaer, 1977). These two traits are the most important parameters in determining the seedling vigor (Alizadeh & Jafari, 2006).

In this study, the combination of osmotic priming with beneficial microorganisms caused increasing in the emergence vigor percentage of F. arundinacea. Osmotic seed priming as one of the most effective methods to increase the percentage emergence of grass is confirmed (Hardegree et al., 2002). Therefore, the convergence of these methods of plant growth promoting bacteria can enhance the beneficial effects. The significant increase of the percentage emergence (about 13.5 %) was observed for F. arundinacea by the treatment 5.0 MPa 2 days Azotobacter compared with control. The results showed that decreasing trend of the percentage emergence by treatment Azotobacter half MPa for 2 days the stress level zero (100% of field capacity) to the highest levels of stress, i.e. 25 % of field capacity was only 5%. So the significant difference was not found between the levels of stress. Emergence percentage in the control treatment showed 10% decrees of the stress level zero (100% of field capacity) to the highest level of stress (25 % of field capacity). This was about twice related the reduction made in the treatment of Azotobacter 0.5MPa for 2 days. So decreasing trend in the emergence percentage affected by stress in the seeds that were treated with bio-priming was much lower than the control.

CONCLUSION

The results showed that plant growth promoting bacteria with the technology of osmotic priming of seeds can be increased yield of forage F. arundinacea species under glasshouse conditions. Bio-priming of seeds with Azosprillum and Azotobacter were significantly increased the growth compared with control treatment. Azotobacter showed relatively higher performance than in Azospirillum. Accordingly, there can be of Azotobacter a greater ability to coexist with F. arundinacea species. Bio-priming treatments improved the yield. However, in the case of F. arundinacea the treatment of Azotobacter 0.5 and 2 MPa for 2 days could be considered as superior treatments as other treatments used in this study.

REFERENCES

(1.) Ahmad, F., Ahmad, I., Khan, M.S., 2005. Indole acetic acid production by the indigenous isolate of Azotobacter and Fluorescent Pseudomonas in the presence and absence of Tryptophan. Turkish Journal of Biology, 29, 29-34

(2.) Alizadeh, M.A., Jafari, A.A., 2006. Seed and seedling responses of ecotypes of Bromus, Agropyron and Medicago to Fusarium solani and F oxysporum. Journal of New Seeds. 8, 7181.

(3.) Alvarado AD, Bradford KJ, Hewitt JD. 1987. Osmotic priming of tomato seeds: effects on germination, [R]eld emergence, seedling growth and fruit yield. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 112: 427 [+ or -] 432.

(4.) Arkhipova, T. N., Prinsen, E., Veselov, S. U., Martinenko, E. V, Melentiev, A. I. and Kudoyarova, G. R., 2007. Cytokinin producing bacteria enhance plant growth in drying soil. Plant Soil 292, 305"315.

(5.) Arsac, J.F., Lamothe, C., Mulard, D. and Fages, J., 1990. Growth enhancement of maize through Azospirilum lipoferum inculcation: effect of plant genotype and bacterial concentration. Agronomie, 10:649-654.

(6.) Bashan, Y, Holguin, G., 1997a. Azospirillum-plant relationships: environmental and physiological advances (1990-1996). Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 43, 103-121.

(7.) Barnes R.F. and Baylor J.E. 1995. Forages in a changing world. In: Barnes R.F., Miller D.A. and Nelson C.J. _eds_, Forages, pp. 3-13. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.

(8.) Basra, A.S., Ullah, E., Warraich, E.A., Cheema, M.A., Afzal, I., 2003. Effect of storage on growth and yield of primed canola(Brassica napus) seeds. International J. Food Agric. Biol. 2, 117-120

(9.) Bent, E., Tuzun, S., Chanway, C.P. and Eneback, S., 2001. Alterations in plant growth and in root hormone levels of lodgepole pines inoculated with rhizobacteria. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 47, 793-800.

(10.) Boddey, R.M. and Do bereiner, J., 1988. Nitrogen fixation associated with grasses and cereals: Recent results and perspectives for future research. Plant and Soil, 108, 53-65.

(11.) Bradford KJ, Steiner JJ, Trawatha SE. 1990. Seed priming in uence on germination and emergence of pepper seed lots. Crop Science 30: 718 [+ or -] 721.

(12.) Brocklehurst, P.A., Dearman, J, Drew., R.L.K., 1984. Effects of osmotic priming on seed germination and seedling growth in leek. Scientia Horticulturae 24, 201 [+ or -] 210.

(13.) Bruggink, G.T., Ooms, J.J., Vander Toorn, P., 1999. Induction of longevity in primed seeds. Seed Sci. Res. 9, 49-53

(14.) Cantliffe, D.J., 1991. Benzyladenine in the priming solution reduces thermodormancy of lettuce seeds. Horticulture Technology, 1, 95-97.

(15.) Capron, I., Corbineua, F., Dacher, F., Job, C., Come, D., Job, D., 2000. Sugar beet seed priming: Effects of priming conditions on germination, solubilization of 11-s globulin and accumulation of LEA proteins. Seed Sci. Res. 10, 243-254

(16.) Chiu, K.Y., Chen, C.L., Sung, J.M., 2002. Effect of priming temperature on storability of primed sh-2 sweet corn seed. Crop Sci. 42, 1996-2003

(17.) Chabot, R., Antoun, H., Cescas, M. P., 1993. Stimulation of the growth of maize and lettuce by inorganic phosphorus- solubilizing microorganisms. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 39, 941-947

(18.) Creus, C. M., Sueldo, R. J., Barassi, C. A., 1998. Water relations in Azospirillum-inoculated wheat seedlings under osmotic stress. Can. J. Bot. 76, 238-244.

(19.) Dearman, J., Brocklehust, P.A., Drew., R.L.K., 1987. Effect of osmotic priming and aging on the germination and emergence of carrot and leek seed. Annu. Appl. Biol. 111, 717-722

(20.) Enebak, S.A., Wei, G, Kloepper., J.W., 1997. Effects of plant growthpromoting

(21.) rhizobacteria on loblolly and slash pine seedlings. For Sci 44, 139-144

(22.) Evans, T.A., Pill, W.G., 1989. Emergence and seedling growth from osmotically primed or pregerminated seeds of asparagus(Asparagus of cinalis L.). Journal of Horticultural Science 64, 275 [+ or -] 282.

(23.) Farooq, M., Basra S.M.A., Wahid, A., 2006. Priming of field sown rice seed enhances germination, seedling established, allometry and yield. Plant Growth Regul. 49, 285-294

(24.) Giri, G.S., Schillinger., W.F., 2003. Seed priming winter wheat for germination, emergence and yield. Crop Sci. 43, 2135-2141

(25.) Glick, B.R., Liu, C., Ghosh, S., Dumbroff, E.B., 1997. The effect of the plant growth promoting rhizobacteriaum Pseudomonas putida GR 12-2 on the development of canola seedlings subjected to various stresses. Soil Biol Biochem 29, 1233-1239

(26.) Glick, B. R., 2004. Bacterial ACC deaminase and the alleviation of plant stress. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 56, 291, 312

(27.) Fulchieri, M., Lucangeli, C. and Bottini, R., 1993. Inoculation with Azospirillum affects growth and gibberellin status of corn seedling roots. Plant Cell Physiology, 34, 1305-1309.

(28.) Hannaway, D., Franden, S., Copper, J., 1999. Tall Fescue (Festuca arundinacea Scherb), reported from Oregon State University, USA. PP. 20

(29.) Hardegree, S.P., Jones, T.A., Van Vactor, S.S., 2002. Variability in Thermal response of Primed and Non-primed Seeds of Squirreltail [Elymus elymoides (Raf.) Swezey and Elymus multisetus (J. G. Smith) M. E. Jones]. Annals of Botany, 89, 311-319.

(30.) Hardegree, S.P., Jones, T.A., Van Vactor, S.S., 2002. Variability in Thermal response of Primed and Non-primed Seeds of Squirreltail [Elymus elymoides (Raf.) Swezey and Elymus multisetus (J. G. Smith) M. E. Jones]. Annals of Botany, 89, 311-319.

(31.) Hartz TK, Caprile J. 1995. Germination of sh2 sweet corn following seed disinfestations, solid-matrix priming and microbial seed treatment. Hort. Sci. 30: 1400-1402

(32.) Harris, D., Joshi, A., Khan, P.A., Gothkar, P., Sodhi, P.S., 1999. Onfarm seed priming in semiarid agriculture development and evaluation in maize, rice and chickpea in India using participatory methods. Exp. Agric. 35, 15-29.

(33.) Harris, D., Rashid, A., Hollington, P.A., Jasi, L., Riches, C., 2002. Prospects of improving maize yields with "on-farm seed priming". In NP Rajbhandari, JJ Ranson, K Adhikari, AFE Palmer, eds, Sustainable maize production systems for Nepal. NARC and CIMMYT, Kathmandu, Nepal. pp 180-185

(34.) Helsel, D.G., Helsel, Z.R., Minor, H.C., 1986. Field studies on osmoconditioning soybeans. Field Crops Research 14,291 [+ or -] 297.

(35.) Heydecker, W., Coolbaer, P., 1977. Seed treatments for improved performance survey and attempted prognosis. Seed Science and Technology, 5, 353-425.

(36.) Heydecker, W., Higgins, J., Gulliver, R.L., 1973. Accelerated germination by osmotic seed treatment. Nature. 246, 42-46

(37.) Jauhar P.P. 1993. Cytogenetics of the Festuca-Lolium complex: relevance to breeding. Springer-Verlag, Berlin; New York. 255 pp.

(38.) JM Beckers, G., Conrath, U., 2007. Priming for stress resistance: from the lab to the field. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2007, 10, 425-431

(39.) Kao, A.L., Chang, T.Y., Chang, S.H., Su, J.C., Yang, C.C., 2005. Characterization of a novel Arabidopsis protein family At MAPR homologous to 25-Dx/IZAg/Hpr6.6 proteins. Bot. Bull., Academy of Sinica 46, 107-118

(40.) Kasim, W.A., Osman, M.E., Omar, M.N., El-Daim IAA, Bejai, S., Meij er, J., 2013. Control of drought stress in wheat using plant-growth promoting bacteria. J Plant Growth Regul 32, 122-130.

(41.) Khan, A.A., Maguire, J.D., Abawi, G.S,, Ilyas, S., 1992. Matriconditioning of vegetable seeds to improve stand establishment in early [R]eld plantings. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 117,41 [+ or -] 47.

(42.) Kucey, R.M.N., 1988. Alteration of size of wheat root system and nitrogen fixation by associative nitrogen- fixation bacteria measured under field conditions. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 34, 735-739.

(43.) Lee, S.S., Kim, J.H., 2000. Total sugars, and amylase activity, and germination after priming of normal and aged rice seeds. Korean J. Crop Sci. 45, 108-111

(44.) Levanony, H., Bashan, Y, 1989. Enhancement of cell division in wheat root tips and growth of root elongation zone induced by Azospirillum brasilens Cd. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 67, 2213-2216.

(45.) Mayaka, S., Tirosh, T., Glick, B.R., 2004. Plant growth-promoting bacteria that confer resistance to water stress in tomatoes and peppers. Plant Sci 166, 525-530.

(46.) Michel, B.E., Kaufmann, M.R., 1973. The Osmotic Potential of Polyethylene Glycol 6000. Plant Physiol. 51, 914-916.

(47.) Murungu, F.S., Nyamugafata, P, Chiduza, C., Clark, L.J., Whalley, W.R., 2003. Effects of seed priming aggregate size and soil matric potential on emergence of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and maize (Zea mays L.). Soil Tillage Res. 74, 161-168

(48.) Nanda, S.S., Swain, K.C., Panda, S.C., Mohanty, A.K. and Alim, M.A., 1995. Effect of nitrogen and biofertilizers in fodder rainfed upland conditions of Orisa. Current. Current Agricultural Research, 8:45-47.

(49.) Okon, Y., Labandera-Gonzalez, C.A., 1994. Agronomic applications of Azospirillum: an evaluation of 20 years worldwide field inoculation. Soil Biology and Soil Biochemistry, 26, 1551-1601.

(50.) Parera, C.A., Cantliffe, D.J., 1994. Pre-sowing seed priming. Hort. Rev. 16, 109-141

(51.) Reginato, R.J., 1993. Field quantification of crop water stress. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 26, 772-775

(52.) Reyes, I., Bernier, L., Antoun, H., 2002. Rock phosphate solubilization and colonization of maize rhizosphere by wild and genetically modified strains of Penicillium rugulosum. Microbial Ecology, 44, 39-48.

(53.) Romero, D., de Vicente, A., Rakotoaly, R.H., Dufour, S.E., Veening, J.W., Arrebola, E., Cazorla, F.M., Kuipers, O.P., Paquot, M. and PerezGarc 1'a, A., 2007. The iturin and fengycin families of lipopeptides are key factors in antagonism of Bacillus subtilis toward Podosphaera fusca. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions, 20, 430-440.

(54.) Sharifi Tehrani, M., Mardi M., Sahebi, J., Catalan, P, Diaz-Perez A., 2009. Genetic diversity and structure among Iranian tall fescue populations based on genomic-SSR and EST-SSR marker analysis. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 282, 57-70.

(55.) Shoebitz, M., Ribaudo, C.M., Pardo, M.A., Cantore, M.L., Ciampi L, Cura, J.A., 2009). Plant growth promoting properties of a strain of Enterobacterludwigii isolated from Loliumperennerhizosphere. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41(9), 1768-1774.

(56.) Sleper, D.A., West, C.P, 1996. Tall Fescue In: ASA, CSSA, SSSA(eds) Cool-season forage grasses. Agronomy Monograph no. 34. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, Wis., pp 471-473

(57.) Sleper, D.A., 1985. Breeding tall fescue. J Plant Breed Rev 3, 313-342

(58.) Malay, C., Saha, Rouf Mian , John C. Zwonitzer Konstantin Chekhovskiy, Andrew A. Hopkins., 2005. An SSR- and AFLP-based genetic linkage map of tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.). Theor Appl Genet, 110, 323-336

(59.) Sturz, A.V, Christie, B.R., Novak, J., 2000. Bacterial endophytes: potential role in developing sustainable system of crop production. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 19, 1-30.

(60.) Taylor, A.G., Allen, P.S., Bennett, M.A., Bradford, K.J., Burris, J.S., Misra, M.K., 1998. Seed enhancements. Seed Sci. Res. 8, 254-256

(61.) Suzuki, H., Obayashi, S., 1994. Effects of seed treatments on the seedling emergence, growth and yield of spring-sown carrot. Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science 63, 73 [+ or -] 79.

(62.) Timmusk, S., Wagner, E.G.H., 1999. The plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium Paenibacillus polymyxa induces changes in Arabidopsis thalianan gene expression: a possible connection between biotic and abiotic stress responses. Mol Plant-Microb Interact 12, 951-959

(63.) Windauer, L., Altuna, A., Benech-Arnold, R., 2007. Hydrotime analysis of Lesquerella fendleri seed germination responses to priming treatments. Ind. Crop Prod. 25, 70-74

(64.) Zahir, A.Z., Abbas, S.A., Khalid, A. and Arshad, M., 2000. Substrate dependent microbially derived plant hormones for improving growth of maize seedling. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science, 3,289-291.

(65.) Yamamoto, I., Turgeon, A.J, Duich, J.M., 1997. Field emergence of solid matrix seed primed turfgrasses. Crop Science 37, 220 [+ or -] 225.

(66.) Youssef, A.A., Edris, A.E. and Gomaa, A.M., 2004. A comparative study between some plant growth regulators and certain growth hormones producing microorganisms on growth and essential oil composition of Salvia officinalis L. Plants. Annals of Agricultural Science, 49, 299-311.

Hadi Radnezhad [1] *, Forogh Mortazaeinezhad [2], Ali Asghar Naghipour [3], Behzad Behtari [4] and Maryam Foroughi Abari [1]

[1] Department of Environmental Sciences, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.

[2] Department of horticulture, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.

[3] Ph.D Student in Range Sciences and Member of Young Researchers Club Islamic Azad University, Isfahan(khorasgan)Branch, Iran.

[4] Ph.D Candidate of Rangeland Science and Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Sari Agricultural sciences and Natural Resources University (SANRU), Iran.

(Received: 23 May 2015; accepted: 08 July 2015)

* To whom all correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: hradnezhad@yahoo.com

Table 1. Comparison of the mean of the interaction effects
of bio-priming treatments at drought stress levels in the
stem and root length (cm) and shoot fresh weight (gr) of
Festuca arundinacea species

Drought    Osmotic    Time           Root length
stress    potential

                              Azospirillum  Azotobacter

25% FC     0.5 Mpa    2days    31.7 b-l       27.5 g-l
                      4days    28.3 e-l       26.9 h-l
            1 Mpa     2days    28.5 d-l       25.6 kl
                      4days    28.6 d-l       29.8 d-l
           1.5 Mpa    2days    32.7 b-j      26.5 ijkl
                      4days    30.9 b-l       29.1 d-l
            2Mpa      2days    28.8 d-l       28.4 e-l
                      4days    28.5 d-l       29.8 d-l
           Control     --                     25.7 jl
50%FC      0.5 Mpa    2days    30.4 b-l        25.3 l
                      4days     32 b-l         30 d-l
            1 Mpa     2days    30.4 b-l       33.4 b-i
                      4days    30.2 c-l      26.5 ijkl
           1.5 Mpa    2days     25.5 kl       33.2 b-i
                      4days    31.5 b-l       27.3 g-l
            2Mpa      2days    29.7 d-l       33.2 b-i
                      4days    27.7 f-l       33.3 b-i
           Control     --                    26.9 h-ll
75%FC      0.5 Mpa    2days    32.8 b-i       32.5 b-k
                      4days    34.4 b-g       35.5 b-d
            1 Mpa     2days    34.1 b-g       32.3 b-l
                      4days    31.6 b-l       33.4 b-i
           1.5 Mpa    2days    33.1 b-i       31.7 b-l
                      4days    33.2 b-i       30.6 b-l
            2Mpa      2days     31.3 bl       32.4 b-k
                      4days    31.4 b-l       35.1 b-e
           Control     --                     31.7 b-l
100%       0.5 Mpa    2days    30.9 b-l       33.7b-h
                      4days    34.4 b-g       35.1 e-b
            1 Mpa     2days    33.6 b-i       34.8 b-f
                      4days    33.2 b-i       37.2 abc
           1.5 Mpa    2days    29.5 d-l       37.4 ab
                      4days     41.7 a        33.4 b-i
            2Mpa      2days    32.8 b-i       33.5 b-i
                      4days    29.9 d-l        32 b-l
           Control     --                     28.1 e-l

Drought    Osmotic    Time        Fresh shoot weight
stress    potential

                              Azospirillum  Azotobacter

25% FC     0.5 Mpa    2days     20 b-f        16.6 def
                      4days     15 def         11.6f
            1 Mpa     2days    16.6 def       18.3 c-f
                      4days     15 def        16.6 def
           1.5 Mpa    2days    16.6 def        25 b-f
                      4days    21.6 b-f       23.3 b-f
            2Mpa      2days    21.6 b-f        23 b-f
                      4days     13.3 ef       21.6 b-f
           Control     --                      16 def
50%FC      0.5 Mpa    2days    23.3 b-f       15.3 def
                      4days     25 b-f        28.3 b-f
            1 Mpa     2days    21.2 b-f       21.6 b-f
                      4days     20 b-f        23.3 b-f
           1.5 Mpa    2days     20 b-f        30 abcde
                      4days    20.3 b-f       21.6 b-f
            2Mpa      2days    23.3 b-f       23.3 b-f
                      4days    31.6 a-d       30.3 a-d
           Control     --                     15.3 def
75%FC      0.5 Mpa    2days    26.6 b-f        35 abc
                      4days    28.3 b-f       30 abcde
            1 Mpa     2days    31.6 a-d       28.3 b-f
                      4days    26.6 b-f       28.3 b-f
           1.5 Mpa    2days     25 b-f        26.6 b-f
                      4days    26.6 b-f       23.3 b-f
            2Mpa      2days    28.3 b-f       35.6 ab
                      4days     36.6 ab        35 abc
           Control     --                      21 b-f
100%       0.5 Mpa    2days    28.3 b-f       30 abcde
                      4days    30 abcde       30 abcde
            1 Mpa     2days    31.6 a-d       28.3 b-f
                      4days    31.6 a-d       23.3 b-f
           1.5 Mpa    2days    26.6 b-f       26.6 b-f
                      4days    31.6 a-d       30 abcde
            2Mpa      2days    26.6 b-f        45.3 a
                      4days     25 b-f        18.3 c-f
           Control     --                     26.3 b-f

Drought    Osmotic    Time        Stem length
stress    potential

                              Azospirillum  Azotobacter

25% FC     0.5 Mpa    2days     25 c-j       21.36g-k
                      4days    24.9 c-j        18.1k
            1 Mpa     2days     20.4ijk        23d-k
                      4days    24.2 c-k       22.1e-k
           1.5 Mpa    2days     24.1c-k      24.6 c-k
                      4days     24.1c-k      23.5 d-k
            2Mpa      2days    21.7 f-k       23.7d-k
                      4days     18.7jk        26.5c-i
           Control     --                    23.1 d-k
50%FC      0.5 Mpa    2days    24.1 c-k       24 d-k
                      4days    20.4 ijk      23.6 d-k
            1 Mpa     2days    28.4 a-f      26.9 b-i
                      4days    24.7 c- k     28.1 a-f
           1.5 Mpa    2days    22.6 e-k      25.5 c-i
                      4days     28 b-g       24.7 c-k
            2Mpa      2days    28.3 a-f      27.2 b-h
                      4days    24.2 c-k      26.6 b-i
           Control     --                     23 d-k
75%FC      0.5 Mpa    2days    27.8 b-h      27.6 b-h
                      4days    26.2 c-i      23.7 d-k
            1 Mpa     2days    26.4 c-i      29.5 abcd
                      4days    24.4 c-k      23.9 d-k
           1.5 Mpa    2days    25.7 c-i      24.5 c-k
                      4days    22.9 d-k      22.9 d-k
            2Mpa      2days    27.7 b-h      25.6 c-i
                      4days     25 c-j       29.5 abcd
           Control     --                     21 b-k
100%       0.5 Mpa    2days    22.1 e-k      28.5 a-e
                      4days    26.6 b-i      27.3 b-h
            1 Mpa     2days    26.9 b-i        33 ab
                      4days    24.4 c-k      25.1 c-j
           1.5 Mpa    2days    24.7 c-k      25.7 c-i
                      4days     25 c-j       23.2 d-k
            2Mpa      2days    24.3 c-k      23.5 d-k
                      4days    23.8 d-k       34.3 a
           Control     --                    24.5 c-k

Similar letters are indicative of no significant difference
between the means (Duncan test p = 5%)
COPYRIGHT 2015 Oriental Scientific Publishing Company
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Radnezhad, Hadi; Mortazaeinezhad, Forogh; Naghipour, Ali Asghar; Behtari, Behzad; Abari, Maryam Foro
Publication:Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology
Article Type:Report
Date:Sep 1, 2015
Words:6446
Previous Article:Factors associated with the rejection of the vaccine against human influenza AH1N1.
Next Article:High-efficient regeneration and transplanting for industrialized seedling production of biomedical Dendrobium officinale.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters