EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 17 (2020) BIO Web Conf., 17 (2020) 00063 Full HTML
Open Access
Issue
BIO Web Conf.
Volume 17, 2020
International Scientific-Practical Conference “Agriculture and Food Security: Technology, Innovation, Markets, Human Resources” (FIES 2019)
Article Number 00063
Number of page(s) 5
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20201700063
Published online 28 February 2020

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2020

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1 Introduction

Barley is one of the main crops in the world and in the Russian Federation. Among the factors that negatively affect crop productivity, one can mention abiotic stresses, including drought [1]. Given global climatic changes, the development of methods for increasing plant resistance to drought is important [2].

In protecting plants from various stresses, biological control methods are becoming important [3]. The main direction in the biological protection of plants is the use of biological products based on various biological agents (biological control agents (BCAs)) [4].

The use of microorganisms to increase the resistance of plants to abiotic and biotic stresses (artificial or acquired immunity) is one of the most promising areas for the integrated plant protection [5–7].

Biological agents include various groups of bacteria (Agrobacterium, Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Streptomyces, etc.) and fungi (Ampelomyces, Candida, Coniothyrium, Trichoderma, etc.) [8].

The most commonly used biological agents of biofungicides are endophytic bacteria, rhizospheric bacteria (Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria – PGPR), actinomycetes and micromycetes of the genus Trichoderma [9–11].

The mechanisms of inducing stress resistance under the influence of biological control agents (BCAs) are associated with induced systemic resistance (ISR) and systemic acquired resistance (SAR). Thus, salicylic acid (SA) is one of the main mechanisms of SAR in plants under the influence of Trichoderma harzianum [12]. Elicitors in the initiation of stress resistance reactions under the influence of biological agents in bacteria are liposaccharides, siderophores, flagella or flagellin, volatile compounds, salicides, the cyclic protein syringolin, antibiotics [13].

For Trichoderma, 22 kDa xylonase, 18 kDa serine proteinase, and others act as elicitors [14]. The use of various biological products based on biological control agents decreases the development of various diseases and increases the yield of various crops, including spring barley [15–17].

Accumulation of proline amino acids in cells [18, 19] and an increase in the activity of various oxidases, including peroxidase [20, 21], are mechanisms of increasing plant resistance to stresses.

The effect of seed treatment with biologicals on increasing yields and quality characteristics of production was described in a number of studies [22, 23].

The aim is to study the effect of various biological control agents on the drought resistance of spring barley and its productivity.

2 Materials and methods

The studies were conducted on the basis of the agroecological center of Kazan State Agrarian University.

The object was spring barley (Hordeum vulgare subsp. Distichon), Raushan variety.

Strains from the collection of Kazan State Agrarian University were studied as biological control agents. 1. endophytic bacterium Bacillus subtilis RECB – 95 B; 2. rhizospheric bacterium Pseudomonas putida RECB – 14 B. 3. rhizospheric bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens RECB – 44 B. 4. actinomycetes Streptomyces sp. RECB – 31 B. 5. micromycete Trichoderma viride RECB – 74 B.

The seeds of spring barley were treated with biological agents at the rate of 1.0 l / t. The control seeds were treated with sterile distilled water.

Laboratory experiments were carried out using a sand culture. For experiments, vessels of a volume of 5 l. were used. 3.05 kg of large sterile river sand was laid out in each vessel, moistening it with Knop’s solution to 25% humidity to create artificial drought. The seeds were planted to a depth of 1.5-2 cm, 35 seeds per vessel. Plants were grown under artificial lighting (a 16 hour period). All experiments were conducted in three biological replicates.

Field experiments were conducted on a plot near Kazan in 2018. In May and June 2018, there were weak arid phenomena. The soil of the experimental plots was gray forest (luvisols). The seeding rate was 500 pcs / m2. The yield of spring barley was determined by all options and was converted to grain moisture at 14%. The plot area was 1.0 m2. The experiments were conducyed in 6 replicates.

The content of free proline in the leaves was determined by the method of Bates et al. [24] with minor modifications. A sample of 200 mg of plant tissue was poured with 5 ml of boiling distilled water and kept for 10 minutes in a water bath at a temperature of 100 ° C. Then, 2 ml of glacial acetic acid, 2 ml of ninhydrin reagent were poured into a clean tube and 2 ml of the prepared extract was added.

Samples were incubated for 20 min in a water bath at a temperature of 100 °C, and quickly cooled up to a room temperature. After artificial cooling (cold water or ice), the optical density of the reaction products was measured at a wavelength of 520 nm using a SPECTROstar spectrophotometer (Germany).

The colorimetric method was used to determine the activity of the peroxidase enzyme in leaves [25].

The chlorophyll extraction was carried out with ethanol; the content was determined spectrophotometrically [26]. 0.5 g of fresh plant leaves were homogenized in a tissue homogenizer. The mixture was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 15 minutes at 4 °C. The supernatant was separated and 0.5 ml was mixed with 4.5 ml of 95% ethanol.

The mixture was analyzed for chlorophyll content using a SPECTROstar spectrophotometer (Germany).

To assess the significance of the difference for the mean values, the standard deviation was determined and Student’s t-test was used (P <0.05).

3 Results and discussion

In the laboratory experiments, on the 21st day after sowing, the dry mass of roots and leaves, as well as the ratio of their masses, was determined.

Under the conditions of model drought, the effect of the biological agents on the growth of leaves and roots was different. Bacillus subtilis RECB – 95 had no effect on these indicators and the ratio of leaf mass to root mass was close to the control one. The rhizospheric bacteria Pseudomonas putida RECB – 14 B and Pseudomonas fluorescens RECB – 44 B, as well as Trichoderma viride RECB – 74 B stimulated leaf growth, but inhibited root growth. The highest indicators of mass and leaves and roots were when treating with Streptomyces spp. RECB – 31, and their ratio was minimal. The results are shown in Table 2.

An increase in the proline content in spring barley leaves was observed when treating with Pseudomonas fluorescens RECB – 44 B. For other strains, the proline content was below the control one.

The maximum activity of peroxidase in the leaves was observed for Bacillus subtilis RECB – 95 B and Streptomyces sp. RECB – 31, but in other embodiments, an increase in enzyme activity was observed.

An increase in the chlorophyll content in the leaves of barley plants under severe drought conditions occurred when treating seeds with Trichoderma viride RECB – 74 B. In other variants with bioagents, the chlorophyll content decreased with the exception of the variant with Pseudomonas fluorescens RECB – 44 B; the use of biological agents increased the ratio of chlorophyll a to chlorophyll b.

In the field conditions, the content of proline in the leaves of spring barley was determined during the phase of full germination (Table 3).

The maximum proline content was when treting with Ps eudomonas putida RECB – 14 B and Streptomyces sp. RECB – 31.

In the field conditions, at the early stages of plant development (tillering) and during shooting, the highest total chlorophyll content was observed when seeds were treated with Pseudomonas fluorescens RECB – 44 B (Table 5). In the earing phase, a positive effect of seed treatment with biological agents was not observed.

In dry summers, the use of all agents for seed treatment increased the yield of spring barley in comparison with the control variant (Table 6).

The highest yield was observed when treating with Streptomyces spp. RECB – 31, Pseudomonas putida RECB – 14 B and Bacillus subtilis RECB – 95 B. For the variant with Streptomyces spp. RECB – 31, the yield increase was 0.73 t/ha.

Table 1.

Dry mass of leaves and roots of spring barley on the 28th day after sowing (laboratory experiment)

Table 2.

The content of proline in the leaves (mg/kg) and peroxidase activity (laboratory experiment)

Table 3.

The content of chlorophyll (mg/g wet weight) in the leaves of spring barley on the 28th day of the experiment (laboratory experiment)

Table 4.

The content of proline in the leaves (mg/kg) of spring barley in the seedling phase (field experiment)

Table 5.

The content of total chlorophyll (mg/g per wet weight) in the leaves at different stages of development of spring barley (field experiment)

Table 6.

Yield (t/ha) of spring barley (field experiment)

4 Conclusion

The studies have shown that in the conditions of artificial acute drought, the effect of biological agents on the resistance of barley plants to stress is different. The use of Streptomyces spp. RECB – 31 stimulates the growth of both leaves and roots. All biological agents increase the activity of peroxidase in the leaves, but Streptomyces spp. RECB – 31 is more efficient. An increase in the content of chlorophyll in the leaves occurred when treating plants with Trichoderma viride RECB – 74 B.

In the field conditions, bacterial biological agents increased the proline content in the leaves, while Trichoderma viride RECB – 74 B, on the contrary, significantly reduced this indicator. With the exception of Trichoderma viride RECB-74 B seed treatment, all biological agents increased the chlorophyll content at the early stages of barley development. This was especially noticeable for Pseudomonas fluorescens RECB – 44 B. In conditions of weak drought, the use of all preparations increased the yield, but the most noticeable positive effect was when treating with Streptomyces spp. RECB – 31 V.

The positive effect on peroxidase activity was observed for all agents, but there some differences between them. The results showed that the effect of various groups of biological control agents (BCAs) on the resistance of barley plants to drought has different mechanisms, which confirms the data obtained by other researchers [26, 27].

The differences in the effects of the strains observed in laboratory and field experiments can be associated with a different degree of drought (a strong degree in the laboratory conditions, a weak degree in the field experiments).

The differences between different microorganisms must be taken into account when developing biological methods for controlling stresses.

5 Recommendations

To increase the resistance of spring barley to drought and increase the yield, Streptomyces spp. RECB – 31 V, Pseudomonas putida RECB – 14 B and Bacillus subtilis RECB – 95 B can be used.

Acknowledgements

The study was conducted with the financial support provided by the Ministry of Education and Science Of The Russian Federation (the agreement number is N°14.610.21.0017. The unique identifier of the project is RFMEFI61017X0017).

References

  • S.A. Anjum, X. Xie, L. Wang, M. F. Saleem, C. Man, W. Lei, Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress African J. of Agricultural Research 6(9), 2026–2032, (2011) [Google Scholar]
  • M Matiu, D.P. Ankerst, A. Menzel, Interactions between temperature and drought in global and regional crop yield variability during 1961-2014 PLoS ONE 12(5), e0178339 (2017) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • P. Calvo, L.M. Nelson, J. Kloepper, Agricultural uses of plant biostimulants Plant Soil 383, 3–41 (2014) [Google Scholar]
  • J. M. Whipps, M. McQuilken, Biological control agents in plant disease control in Disease Control in Crops: Biological and Environmentally Friendly Approaches 27–61 (2009) [Google Scholar]
  • A. Nega, Review on concepts in biological control of plant pathogens J. of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 4(27), 33–54 (2014) [Google Scholar]
  • M. Grover, S. Z. Ali, V. Sandhya, A. Rasul, B. Venkateswarlu, Role of microorganisms in adaptation of agriculture crops to abiotic stress World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 27(5), 1231–1240 (2010) [Google Scholar]
  • X.-M. Xu, P. Jeffries, M. Pautasso, M. J. Jeger, Combined use of biocontrol agents to manage plant diseases in theory and practice Phytopathology 101, 1024–1031 (2011) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • B. B. McSpadden, D. R. Fravel, Biological control of plant pathogens: Research, commercialization, and application in the USA Online. Plant Health Progress (2002) DOI:10.1094/PHP-2002-0510-01RV. [Google Scholar]
  • J. Hallmann, A. Quadt-Hallmann, W. F. Mahaffee, J. W. Kloepper, Bacterial endophytes in agricultural crops Can. J. Microbiol. 43, 895–914 (1997) [Google Scholar]
  • R. Mendes, P. Garbeva, J.M. Raaijmakers, The rhizosphere microbiome: significance of plant beneficial, plant pathogenic, and human pathogenic microorganisms FEMS Microbiol Rev. 37, 634–663 (2013) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • L. Naher, U. K. Yusuf, A. Ismail, K. Hossain, Trichoderma spp.: A biocontrol agent for sustainable management of plant diseases Pak. J. Bot. 46(4), 1489–1493 (2014) [Google Scholar]
  • S. Deshmukh, R. Hueckelhoven, P. Schaefer, J. Imani, M. Sharma, The root endophytic fungus Piriformospora indica requires host cell death for proliferation during mutualistic symbiosis with barley in Proc. of National Academic Sciences USA 103, 18450–18457 (2006) [Google Scholar]
  • H. Meziane, I. van der Sluis, L.C. van Loon, M. Hofte, PAHM Bakker, Determinants of Pseudomonas putida WCS358 involved in inducing systemic resistance in plants Molecular Plant Pathology 6, 177–185 (2005) [Google Scholar]
  • S.L. Woo, F. Scala, M. Ruocco, M. Lorito, The molecular biology of the interactions between Trichoderma spp., phytopathogenic fungi, and plants Phytopathology 96, 181–185 (2006) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • A. Baturo, Effect of thermotherapy, grain treatment and leaf spraying with biological control agents on spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) health in organic system Phytopathol. Pol. 41, 15–26 (2006) [Google Scholar]
  • L. O. Kriuchkova, Biological control of leaf disease of barley with Bacillus strain BIOLOGIJA 63(3), 289–295 (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Grzesiak, M. Filek, A. Barbasz, B. Kreczmer, H. Hartikainen, Relationships between polyamines, ethylene, osmoprotectants and antioxidant enzymes activities in wheat seedlings after short-term PEGand NaCl-induced stresses Plant Growth Regul. 69, 177–189 (2013) [Google Scholar]
  • B Jensen, I.M.B. Knudsen, D. F. Jensen, Biological seed treatment of cereals with fresh and long-term stored formulations of Clonostachys rosea: biocontrol efficacy against Fusarium culmorum Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 106, 233–242 (2000) [Google Scholar]
  • S. Sharma, J.G. Villamon, P.E. Verslues, Essential role of tissue-specific proline synthesis and catabolism in growth and redox balance at low water potential Plant Physiol. 157, 292–304 (2011) [Google Scholar]
  • T. K. Egizbaeva, T. Lee, A. Haseyn, A. E. Halymbetova, F. Zhardemali, Cellular selection of wheat and potato using peroxidase as a marker protein drought resistance Biotechnology. Theory and practice 3, 25–32 (2010) [Google Scholar]
  • M. Almeselmani, P.S. Deshmukh, R.K. Sairam, S.R. Kushwaha, T.P. Singh, Protective role of antioxidant enzymes under high temperature stress Plant Sci. 171(3), 382–388 (2006) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • L Philippot, J.M. Raaijmakers, P. Lemanceau, W.H. van der Putten, Going back to the roots: the microbial ecology of the rhizosphere, Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 11, 789–799 (2013) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • L. Herrmann, D. Lesueur, Challenges in formulation and quality of biofertilisers for successful inoculation Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 97, 8859–8873 (2013) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • L.S. Bates, R.P. Waldrin, J.D. Ter, Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies Plant and soil 39(1), 205–208 (1973) [Google Scholar]
  • A.N. Boyarkin, Rapid method for peroxidase activity determination Biokhimiya 16, 352–355 (1951) [Google Scholar]
  • H. K. Lichtenthaler, Chlorophylls and carotenoids: pigments of photosynthetic membranes Method Enzymol. 148, 350–382 (1987) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • I.A. Abd El-Daim, S. Bejai, J. Meijer, Improved heat stress tolerance of wheat seedlings by bacterial seed treatment Plant and Soil 379 (1-2), 337–350 (2014) [Google Scholar]
  • J. Yang, J. W. Kloepper, C.-M. Ryu, Rhizosphere bacteria help plants tolerate abiotic stress Trends Plant Sci., 14(1), 1–4 (2009) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

All Tables

Table 1.

Dry mass of leaves and roots of spring barley on the 28th day after sowing (laboratory experiment)

In the text
Table 2.

The content of proline in the leaves (mg/kg) and peroxidase activity (laboratory experiment)

In the text
Table 3.

The content of chlorophyll (mg/g wet weight) in the leaves of spring barley on the 28th day of the experiment (laboratory experiment)

In the text
Table 4.

The content of proline in the leaves (mg/kg) of spring barley in the seedling phase (field experiment)

In the text
Table 5.

The content of total chlorophyll (mg/g per wet weight) in the leaves at different stages of development of spring barley (field experiment)

In the text
Table 6.

Yield (t/ha) of spring barley (field experiment)

In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.