Effects of Inoculating Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria on Physiological Characteristics of Maize Leaves in Medium- and Low-yield Soils

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0278

Abstract

Abstract:

This study aimed to investigate the effect of inoculating plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on the physiological characteristics of maize leaves in medium- and low-yield soils. A pot experiment was conducted using the maize variety ‘Zhengdan 958’ as the test material. Four treatments were established, namely the control, inoculation with the culture medium, inoculation with inactivated PGPR, and inoculation with active PGPR. The indices including antioxidant enzymes, non-enzymatic antioxidant substances, osmotic regulatory substances and endogenous hormones in maize leaves were determined by the kit method. The results indicated that compared with the control, the inoculation with PGPR treatment significantly increased the activities of peroxidase (POD) and glutathione reductase (GR), as well as the contents of non-enzymatic antioxidant substances and promoting hormones, and the ratios of IAA/ABA, GA/ABA, ZT/ABA, and (IAA + GA + ZT)/ABA in maize leaves. Conversely, it significantly decreased the contents of soluble sugars, proline, and abscisic acid (ABA) in the leaves, showing 59.46% and 56.91% increases in the activities of POD and GR, as well as 40.32% and 23.87% decreases in the contents of soluble sugars and ABA, in comparison to the control group, respectively. Additionally, compared with the PGPR inoculation treatment, the effects of culture medium inoculation and inactivated PGPR inoculation on the physiological characteristics of maize leaves were relatively smaller. Comprehensive analysis revealed that root inoculation with PGPR could enhance the adaptability of maize plants in medium- and low-yield soils by regulating the antioxidant system, the contents of osmotic adjustment substances and endogenous hormones, and the balance of these hormones in maize leaves.

Key words: medium- and low-yield soils, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, maize, antioxidant system, endogenous hormone balance, osmotic adjustment substance, tolerance

LIU Guimin, SU Lei, ZHENG Xiaoning, CHEN Di, LIU Binghua, SUN Mingjie, LIU Xinghong, XU Yingmei. Effects of Inoculating Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria on Physiological Characteristics of Maize Leaves in Medium- and Low-yield Soils[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(3): 119-124.

Figures/Tables 5

References 27

[1]	李明秋, 郭锦标. 21世纪以来中国中低产田改造技术研究进展[J]. 资源开发与市场, 2017, 33(5):529-532,634.
[2]	张小丹, 吴克宁, 杨淇钧, 等. 耕地健康产能内涵及评价指标体系研究进展[J]. 土壤通报, 2020, 51(1):245-252.
[3]	HEINO M, PUMA M J, WARD P J, et al. Two-thirds of global cropland area impacted by climate oscillations[J]. Nature communications, 2018, 9(1):1257. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02071-5 pmid: 29593219
[4]	中华人民共和国农业农村部. 2019年全国耕地质量等级情况公报[R]. 中华人民共和国农业农村部公报, 2020.
[5]	张奇, 张振华, 卢信. 生物有机肥施用对黄泛冲积区贫瘠土壤养分、酶和微生物多样性的影响[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2020, 36(2):325-335.
[6]	徐明岗, 卢昌艾, 张文菊, 等. 我国耕地质量状况与提升对策[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2016, 37(7):8-14.
[7]	张佳宝, 林先贵, 李晖. 新一代中低产田治理技术及其在大面积均衡增产中的潜力[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2011, 26(4):375-382.
[8]	康贻军, 程洁, 梅丽娟, 等. 植物根际促生菌作用机制研究进展[J]. 应用生态学报, 2010, 21(1):232-238.
[9]	孙玉, 邢瑜琪, 王红, 等. 西藏黄花草木樨根际溶磷菌筛选及其促生特性研究[J]. 高原农业, 2020, 4(5):510-516.
[10]	李福艳, 刘晓玉, 颜静婷, 等. 三株产吲哚乙酸根际促生芽孢杆菌的筛选鉴定及其促生作用[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(5):873-884. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.05.13
[11]	LIU F C, MA H L, LIU B H, et al. Effects of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on the physioecological characteristics and growth of walnut seedlings under drought stress[J]. Agronomy, 2023, 13:290. doi: 10.3390/agronomy13020290 URL
[12]	GUTIÉRREZ-MAÑERO F J, RAMOS-SOLANO B, PROBANZA A, et al. The plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria Bacillus pumilus and Bacillus licheniformis produce high amounts of physiologically active gibberellins[J]. Physiologia plantarum, 2001, 111(2):206-211. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-3054.2001.1110211.x URL
[13]	HAN Q Q, LÜ X P, BAI J P, et al. Beneficial soil bacterium Bacillus subtilis (GB03) augments salt tolerance of white clover[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2014, 5:525.
[14]	ROJAS-TAPIAS D, MORENO-GALVÁN A, PARDO-DÍAZ S, et al. Effect of inoculation with plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) on amelioration of saline stress in maize (Zea mays)[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2012, 61(5):264-272. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2012.01.006 URL
[15]	ALASKAR A A, AL-SHWAIMAN H A. The effect of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on soil properties and the physiological and anatomical characteristics of wheat under water-deficit stress conditions[J]. Agriculture, 2023, 13:1-19. doi: 10.3390/agriculture13010001 URL
[16]	杨舒贻, 陈晓阳, 惠文凯, 等. 逆境胁迫下植物抗氧化酶系统响应研究进展[J]. 福建农林大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 45(5):481-489.
[17]	王金缘, 娄钠, 徐萌, 等. PEG预处理对干旱和盐复合胁迫下水稻幼苗AsA-GSH循环的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2018, 46(7):51-54.
[18]	夏可心, 于亚楠, 张建, 等. 2种木霉生物有机肥对蕹菜产量和品质的影响[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2020, 43(2):284-291.
[19]	马凤捷, 蔡立群, 刘垠霖, 等. 不同微生物菌剂处理对哈密瓜品质及土壤养分和酶活性的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(2):69-77.
[20]	李晓青, 荆月婷, 冯全福, 等. PEG模拟干旱胁迫对不同烤烟品种生理特性的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2016, 37(3):15-21.
[21]	毛浩田, 陈梦莹, 吴楠, 等. 干旱胁迫对不同倍性小麦和八倍体小黑麦苗期光合能力与抗氧化系统的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2018, 38(10):1246-1254.
[22]	王翼翔, 孔涛, 孙溥璠, 等. 干旱胁迫条件下菌剂对土壤微生物性质和紫花苜蓿生理性质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2023(8):104-111.
[23]	陈晓莉, 杨宏羽, 韩佳, 等. 化肥减量配施微生物菌肥对兰州百合光合生理特性的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2024, 44(9):1365-1375.
[24]	康书江, 赵春江, 郭晓维, 等. 植物内源激素对小麦生长发育调控机理的研究II.冬小麦拔节前植物内源激素变化规律的初步研究[J]. 麦类作物, 1999, 19(4):51-53.
[25]	陈小荣, 刘灵燕, 钟蕾, 等. 抽穗后干旱复水对双季杂交晚稻产量形成和叶片δ¹³C及内源激素水平的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2013, 27(2):240-246. doi: 10.11869/hnxb.2013.02.0240
[26]	李东晓, 李存东, 孙传范, 等. 干旱对棉花主茎叶片内源激素含量与平衡的影响[J]. 棉花学报, 2010, 22(3):231-235. doi: 10.11963/cs100306
[27]	徐澜, 高志强, 安伟, 等. 冬麦春播小麦发育进程中主茎叶片内源激素的变化[J]. 核农学报, 2016, 30(2):355-363. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2016.02.0355

处理	AsA/(ng/g)	DHA/(ng/g)	GSH/(ng/g)	GSSG/(ng/g)
对照	3.72±0.21b	3.95±0.18c	1.18±0.06c	0.49±0.02c
培养基	4.00±0.10a	4.22±0.30bc	1.29±0.06b	0.54±0.03b
灭活菌剂	3.87±0.20ab	4.36±0.20ab	1.30±0.05b	0.58±0.03a
菌剂	4.04±0.13a	4.63±0.10a	1.41±0.03a	0.60±0.02a

处理	AsA/(ng/g)	DHA/(ng/g)	GSH/(ng/g)	GSSG/(ng/g)
对照	3.72±0.21b	3.95±0.18c	1.18±0.06c	0.49±0.02c
培养基	4.00±0.10a	4.22±0.30bc	1.29±0.06b	0.54±0.03b
灭活菌剂	3.87±0.20ab	4.36±0.20ab	1.30±0.05b	0.58±0.03a
菌剂	4.04±0.13a	4.63±0.10a	1.41±0.03a	0.60±0.02a

处理	可溶性糖/(mg/g)	可溶性蛋白/(mg/mL)	脯氨酸/(ng/g)
对照	100.55±5.81a	0.58±0.04c	30.16±0.64a
培养基	101.33±2.76a	0.70±0.03b	28.61±0.96b
灭活菌剂	67.66±4.32b	0.92±0.05a	26.90±1.39c
菌剂	60.01±2.99c	0.61±0.03c	25.11±0.64d

处理	可溶性糖/(mg/g)	可溶性蛋白/(mg/mL)	脯氨酸/(ng/g)
对照	100.55±5.81a	0.58±0.04c	30.16±0.64a
培养基	101.33±2.76a	0.70±0.03b	28.61±0.96b
灭活菌剂	67.66±4.32b	0.92±0.05a	26.90±1.39c
菌剂	60.01±2.99c	0.61±0.03c	25.11±0.64d

处理	IAA/(μg/g)	GA/(pg/mg)	ZT/(ng/g)	ABA/(μg/g)
对照	0.75±0.05b	4.16±0.27b	2.88±0.20b	3.40±0.12a
培养基	0.85±0.05a	4.52±0.27a	3.02±0.19ab	3.08±0.09b
灭活菌剂	0.85±0.04a	4.45±0.19ab	3.17±0.12a	2.89±0.07c
菌剂	0.91±0.05a	4.60±0.26a	3.19±0.11a	2.59±0.20d