Next Article in Journal
Effects of Magnesium, Pyrophosphate and Phosphonates on Pyrophosphorolytic Reaction of UDP-Glucose Pyrophosphorylase
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Pyroligneous Acid on the Productivity and Nutritional Quality of Greenhouse Tomato
Previous Article in Journal
Serial-Omics and Molecular Function Study Provide Novel Insight into Cucumber Variety Improvement
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ascorbic Acid Preconditioning Effect on Broccoli Seedling Growth and Photosynthesis under Drought Stress
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/plants11121612
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Improve Growth and Fruit Quality of Cucumber under Greenhouse Conditions

by
Gerardo Zapata-Sifuentes
1,2,
Luis G. Hernandez-Montiel
3,*,
Jorge Saenz-Mata
4,
Manuel Fortis-Hernandez
1,
Eduardo Blanco-Contreras
2,
Roberto G. Chiquito-Contreras
5 and
Pablo Preciado-Rangel
1,*
1
Tecnológico Nacional de México, Instituto Tecnológico de Torreón, Carretera Torreón-San Pedro km 7.5, Torreón 27170, Mexico
2
Departamento de Agroecología, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Unidad Laguna, Carretera Periférico s/n, Col. Valle Verde, Torreón 27054, Mexico
3
Nanotechnology & Microbial Biocontrol Group, Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, Av. Politécnico Nacional 195, Col. Playa Palo Santa Rita, La Paz 23090, Mexico
4
Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Av. Universidad s/n, Col. Filadelfia, Gómez Palacio 35010, México
5
Facultad de Ciencias Agrícolas, Universidad Veracruzana, Circuito Universitario Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrán s/n, Zona Universitaria, Xalapa 91090, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2022, 11(12), 1612; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11121612
Submission received: 25 May 2022 / Revised: 13 June 2022 / Accepted: 14 June 2022 / Published: 20 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vegetable and Fruit Production)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cucumber fruit is rich in fiber, carbohydrates, protein, magnesium, iron, vitamin B, vitamin C, flavonoids, phenolic compounds, and antioxidants. Agrochemical-based production of cucumber has tripled yields; however, excessive synthetic fertilization has caused problems in the accumulation of salts in the soil and has increased production costs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of three strains of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on cucumber fruit growth and quality under greenhouse conditions. The rhizobacteria Pseudomonas paralactis (KBendo6p7), Sinorhizobium meliloti (KBecto9p6), and Acinetobacter radioresistens (KBendo3p1) was adjusted to 1 × 108 CFU mL−1. The results indicated that the inoculation with PGPR improved plant height, stem diameter, root length, secondary roots, biomass, fruit size, fruit diameter, and yield, as well as nutraceutical quality and antioxidant capacity, significantly increasing the response of plants inoculated with A. radioresistens and S. meliloti in comparison to the control. In sum, our findings showed the potential functions of the use of beneficial bacteria such as PGPR for crop production to reduce costs, decrease pollution, and achieve world food safety and security.

1. Introduction

Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) is a plant of the family Cucurbitaceae which is produced worldwide in open fields and protected agriculture [1]. Cucumber fruit is widely consumed for its taste and freshness around the world, in addition, its nutritional contribution and nutraceutical properties have positive impacts on health, especially in people with diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular, and Alzheimer’s disease [2,3,4]. Moreover, it is also a high source of fiber, carbohydrates, proteins, magnesium, iron, vitamin B and C, flavonoids, phenolic compounds, and antioxidants [5,6]. In the last few years, agrochemical-based production schemes have helped to increase the yield of the cucumber crops by three, however, synthetic fertilization has caused problems with salt accumulation in soil and increased production costs [7,8,9,10].
Currently, beneficial microorganisms have been applied in the plants as a sustainable alternative for food production [11], likewise, the combination with synthetic fertilizers has led to increased plant growth and productivity [7,12]. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) are a microorganism group able to increase the shoot and root length, improve water and nutrient absorption, and improve fruit quality and productivity in plants [13]. Undoubtedly, among the promoting mechanisms the production of phytohormone (auxin and cytokinins), volatile compounds, siderophores, atmospheric nitrogen fixation processes, and solubilized phosphate are the most important [12,14].
Moreover, the common genera of PGPR reported are Azospirillum, Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Azotobacter, Caulobacter, Flavobacterium, Enterobacter, among others [14,15,16]. One of the most studied genera within PGPR is the Pseudomonas [17]. Furthermore, the P. paralactis has stood out in vitro for its capacity to solubilize phosphate, indoleacetic acid (IAA), and siderophores production, however, up to now, no previous study has investigated its effect in vivo [18]. Acinetobacter radioresistens is another PGPR that produces IAA, it can solubilize phosphate and produce siderophores, in turn, it has promoted the growth of plants such as Ilex paraguariensis and Aloe vera [19,20]. Another one is Sinorhizobiun meliloti characterized by nitrogen fixation [21], IAA production [22], phosphate solubilization [23], and the growth-promoting of the Medicago sativa L. and Lactuca sativa L. [21]. Based on the above, the role of PGPR on plants is important and necessary to incorporate into the agricultural systems production. In addition, the evaluation of their potential for fruit production and quality is just as important, therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of PGPR on the growth and fruit quality of cucumber fruit under greenhouse conditions.

2. Results

2.1. Morphological Parameters of Cucumber Plants Inoculated with PGPR

PGPR inoculation of cucumber significantly increased plant growth (Table 1). The height of plants inoculated with rhizobacteria; S. meliloti, P. paralactis, and A. radioresistens showed significant differences with respect to plants without microorganisms. Plants inoculated with S. meliloti and A. radioresistens showed an increase in stem diameter of 36 and 30%, respectively, and an increase in dry biomass of 59 and 83%, respectively. Regarding root length, A. radioresistens promoted an increase of 135%. Finally, P. paralactis increased secondary roots by 97%.

2.2. Fruit Length, Diameter, and Yield

Fruit length and diameter increased significantly when plants were inoculated with the three rhizobacteria and A. radioresistens, increasing yield by 51.9% (Table 1).

2.3. Fruit Quality, Total Phenolic Contents, Total Flavonoids, Antioxidant Capacity, and Vitamin C Content

PGPR inoculation had a significant effect on the phenolic content in cucumber fruits, with the rhizobacterium S. meliloti promoting the greatest increase in phenolic content by 73% (Figure 1a), flavonoids by 126% (Figure 1b), and antioxidant capacity by 47% (Figure 1c). A. radioresistens increased the content of vitamin C by 112% (Figure 1d).

2.4. Total Protein

Total protein values showed no significant difference, however, inoculation with S. meliloti increased by 64% with respect to the control (Figure 2).

2.5. Rhizobacterial Population

CFU counts indicated the presence of PGPR in the root of cucumber plants. There was a statistical difference between treatments, with P. paralactis being 409% higher than the control (Figure 3).

3. Discussion

Pseudomonas paralactis, Sinorhizobiun meliloti, and Acinetobacter radioresistens, are considered PGPR due to their capability to promote growth, development, productivity, and fruit quality [21,24,25]. The results obtained on plant height and stem diameter when using S. meliloti and A. radioresistens as inoculant in C. sativus plants can be attributed to the increase in root length and the number of secondary roots, implying an effect on biomass accumulation and yield. In similar studies [26], using Bacillus velezensis as inoculant of C. sativus, it was observed that the host plant modifies the root structure, which improves water and nutrient uptake, promoting a higher photosynthetic rate. It has been suggested that the modification of the root structure of a cucumber plant is related to the phytohormone indoleacetic acid (IAA) produced by S. meliloti, A. radioresistens, and P. paralactis [11,14,27]. In addition, it has been reported that S. meliloti and A. radioresistens possess the ability to fix nitrogen and solubilize phosphate, resulting in an increase on the number of late-stage roots and root hairs, since these elements are essential for the plant to increase photosynthetic pigments and proteins, which improves photosynthetic activity and rate, having a positive effect on plant development and a greater accumulation of biomass [28,29]. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that IAA is associated with cell division and differentiation, which improves the structure of the root system [30,31,32].
Regarding nutraceutical quality, S. meliloti increased the contents of phenolic compounds, flavonoids and antioxidant capacity, which can be attributed to the ability of the microorganism’s and/or its effect to induce phenolic compounds, osmolytes and organic acids in the plant, improving the availability of these compounds to be used by the plant [33]. It has been reported that in the cultivation of Capsicum annuum, the number of flavonoids increases when the plant is inoculated with P. putida because it uses quercetin and kaempferol catabolizing them as a carbon source [34], moreover, it has been observed that S. meliloti responds to the synthesis of proteins, mainly the Nod protein, excreting flavonoids [35]. Furthermore, if the antioxidant capacity is in dynamic equilibrium under normal growth conditions, it implies the decrease of enzymatic activity which results in the elimination of reactive oxygen, however, membrane lipid peroxidation is induced [29], and this could explain the increase of antioxidant capacity in the fruit of C. sativus in our results.
PGPR increases vitamin C in fruit as a non-enzymatic response to the retardation of the oxidation, also, the increase in total proteins may be due to oxidation; since the PGPR mitigate the effects of oxidation by allocating bioactive compounds to reduce the exposure of reactive oxygen species (ROS) with DNA and protein packaging, it can be inferred that the increased nutraceutical qualities of cucumber crop are due to a non-enzymatic response to natural oxidation of the plant and fruit [36].
The change in culturable bacterial subpopulation density can be attributed to the nature of each microorganism, host plant, plant genotype and environmental conditions [37], which may explain how PGPR decreases at a rate of 10−2 [38]. Although P. paralactis has been reported [39] as a PGPR due to IAA production and phosphate solubilization in vitro, this is the first study of its effect on growth promotion in cucumber plants.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Inoculation in Seed, Production of Seedlings, and Crop Management

The study was carried out through an agricultural cycle from Spring to Summer 2020 at Comarca Lagunera (101°40′ and 104°45′ W; 25°05′ and 26°54′ N). It was established at the Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Unidad Laguna (UAAAN-UL), maintaining an average temperature of 25 °C and a relative humidity of 70%.
The genera of PGPR studied were Pseudomonas paralactis (KBendo6p7), Sinorhizobium meliloti (KBecto9p6), and Acinetobacter radioresistens (KBendo3p1) donated by the Microbial Ecology Laboratory of Biology Faculty from Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, México. After the reactivation of each bacterial strain, each bacterial strain was cultured in PBS al 0.5% [40] at 30 °C for 24 h with a constant shaking at 120 revolutions per minute (rpm). Subsequently, the concentration was adjusted to 1 × 108 colony-forming units (CFU) mL−1 with a spectrophotometer (VELAB VE-5100UV) at a wavelength of 540 nm (Absorbance = 1.0 unit).
Cucumber seeds (Poinset 76 variety) were prepared, seeds were then disinfected with 5% sodium hypochlorite for 1 h, the polystyrene germination plates were sterilized with the same solution and washed using distilled water. In addition, the peat moss was sterilized in autoclave at 15 psi for 1 h. Prior to sowing, around 200 seeds were inoculated with immersion in 50 mL of each bacteria for 24 h [41]. One seed per cavity was deposited in germination plates which were placed in a greenhouse. After 20 days, each seedling was transplanted into 10 L black polyethylene pots containing a substrate of sand and perlite in 80:20 ratio, respectively, the substrate was previously sanitized with a 5% sodium hypochlorite solution for 72 h. Eight plants per treatment were used in a completely randomized block design.
Irrigation was based on daily evapotranspiration according to evapotranspiration requirements [42] and was applied from transplanting to 150 days after emergence from a 100% Steiner nutrient solution [43] with an electrical conductivity (EC) of 2 dSm−1 and a pH of 5.5.
At 55 days after transplantation (DAT), plants were re-inoculated with 15 mL of each rhizobacterium at a concentration of 1 × 108 CFU mL−1 [40,41].

4.2. Parameter Evaluated

4.2.1. Morphology

At 45 DAT, the plant height (cm) and stem diameter (mm) were measured and at 150 DAT, root length (cm) and secondary roots were measured. For biomass (g), three plants per treatment were taken, placed in paper bags and placed in a drying oven at 70 °C for 72 h, determining the dry biomass (g) at the end.

4.2.2. Fruit Size, Fruit Diameter, and Yield

Three plants per treatment were harvested at 80 and 120 DAT to measure the fruit diameter using a digital vernier (H-7352, Uline) expressing its units in millimeters (mm), the length was measured (cm) taking the first point from the base to the appendix of the fruit and for the determination of yield the total weight of the fruit obtained by each plant (kg/plant) was recorded using a digital balance (VE-CB2000, VELAB).

4.3. Nutraceutical Quality, Phenolic Content, Flavonoids, Antioxidant Capacity, Vitamin C, and Total Protein

4.3.1. Extracts Preparation

The extracts were obtained as follows: from three plants per treatment, two fruits were taken at random, and then crushed to obtain a compound mixture. Afterwards, 2 g of fresh pulp were placed in 10 mL of 80% ethanol in a glass tube with screw cap, leaving them in a rotary shaker (Remi RS—24BL, Jayanti Scientific, Delhi, India) for 24 h at 70 rpm at room temperature. Finally, the tubes were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 5 min, once the supernatant was extracted; the procedure was performed in triplicate for each treatment.

4.3.2. Total Phenolic Content

The total phenolic content was determined according to the Folin-Ciacalteau method [44] expressing the result in milligrams of gallic acid (GAE) per 100 g of fresh weight (FW) (mg GAE 100 g−1 FW).

4.3.3. Flavonoids

The total flavonoids were determined by the Lamaison and library technique [45], the results were expressed in milligrams of quercetin (QE) per 100 g of FW(mg QE 100 g−1 FW).

4.3.4. Antioxidant Capacity

The antioxidant capacity was determined with the DPPH++ method [46] and is expressed in μM equivalent Trolox 100 g−1 FW.

4.3.5. Vitamin C Content

Vitamin C content was determined according to Hernández-Hernández [47], the units of measurement correspond to milligrams per 100 g of FW (mg 100 g−1 FW).

4.3.6. Total Protein

Total soluble protein was determined by Bradford’s method [48] expressed in milligrams per gram of fresh weight (mg g−1 FW).

4.4. Colonies Count of Rhizobacteria

The culturable bacterial subpopulation density was carried out on a sample composed of roots per treatment (10 g), macerating the roots with a ceramic mortar to homogenize them and then gauging to 100 mL with NaCl saline solution at 0.85%. 85% of the mixture was shaken for 5 min in a Benchmark vortex and allowed to stand for 20 min, then the samples were serially diluted to 10−4 and an aliquot of 100 µL was inoculated in triplicate, for each treatment, in Petri dishes with 20 mL of trypticase soy agar (TSA) culture medium and 1g of copper sulfate. They were incubated at 37 °C for 48 h and colony forming units (CFU) were counted [49].

4.5. Statistical Analysis

The study variables were analyzed by means of an analysis of variance with the SAS 9.4 statistical package; if a significant difference was found, a comparison of means was performed using the Tukey method (p < 0.05).

5. Conclusions

Inoculation of the plants with PGPR improved height, stem diameter, root length, secondary roots, biomass, size and fruit diameter, and yield. In addition, nutraceutical quality parameters in the plants inoculated with P. paralactis, S. meliloti and A. radioresistens were increase compared to the control. In the future, it is necessary studies on the effects of the inoculation of bacteria consortiums on growth, productivity, and fruit quality of cucumber.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.P.-R.; methodology, G.Z.-S., E.B.-C. and M.F.-H.; software, J.S.-M. and R.G.C.-C.; validation, G.Z.-S., R.G.C.-C. and P.P.-R.; investigation, G.Z.-S., P.P.-R. and L.G.H.-M.; resources, E.B.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, G.Z.-S., P.P.-R. and L.G.H.-M.; writing—review and editing, P.P.-R. and L.G.H.-M.; visualization, E.B.-C., R.G.C.-C. and M.F.-H.; supervision, P.P.-R. and J.S.-M.; project administration, P.P.-R.; funding acquisition, P.P.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by Tecnológico Nacional de México, Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología and Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro (Project #11215.21P).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT), Instituto Tecnológico de Torreón (ITT), Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro Unidad Laguna (UAAAN UL) and technical support of María Sofía Ramos Galván and José Manuel Melero Astorga (members of Nanotechnology & Microbial Biocontrol Group) of the Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Behera, T.K.; Boopalakrishnan, G.; Jat, G.S.; Das Munshi, A.; Choudhary, H.; Ravindran, A.; Kumari, S.; Kumari, R. Deriving stable tropical gynoecious inbred lines of slicing cucumber from American pickling cucumber using MABB. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2022, 63, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Achikanu, C.E.; Ani, O.N.; Akpata, E.I. Proximate, vitamin and phytochemical composition of Cucumis metuliferus seed. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 2, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
  3. Helal, M.; Sami, R.; Algarni, E.; Alshehry, G.; Aljumayi, H.; Al-Mushhin, A.A.; Benajiba, N.; Chavali, M.; Kumar, N.; Iqbal, A.; et al. Active Bionanocomposite Coating Quality Assessments of Some Cucumber Properties with Some Diverse Applications during Storage Condition by Chitosan, Nano Titanium Oxide Crystals, and Sodium Tripolyphosphate. Crystals 2022, 12, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Uthpala, T.G.G.; Marapana, R.A.U.J.; Lakmini, K.; Wettimuny, D.C. Nutritional bioactive compounds and health benefits of fresh and processed cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). SJB 2020, 3, 75–82. [Google Scholar]
  5. Preciado-Rangel, P.; Reyes-Pérez, J.J.; Ramírez-Rodríguez, S.C.; Salas-Pérez, L.; Fortis-Hernández, M.; Murillo-Amador, B.; Troyo-Diéguez, E. Foliar aspersion of salicylic acid improves phenolic and flavonoid compounds, and also the fruit yield in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Plants 2019, 8, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Yuan, W.; Zhao, P.; Chen, H.; Wang, L.; Huang, G.; Cao, L.; Huang, Q. Natural green-peel orange essential oil enhanced the deposition, absorption and permeation of prochloraz in cucumber. RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 20395–20401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Geng, Y.; Bashir, M.A.; Zhao, Y.; Luo, J.; Liu, X.; Li, F.; Wang, H.; Raza, Q.; Rehim, A.; Zhang, X.; et al. Long-Term Fertilizer Reduction in Greenhouse Tomato-Cucumber Rotation System to Assess N Utilization, Leaching, and Cost Efficiency. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Guan, X.; Liu, C.; Li, Y.; Wang, X.; Liu, Y.; Zou, C.; Chen, X.; Zhang, W. Reducing the environmental risks related to phosphorus surplus resulting from greenhouse cucumber production in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 332, 130076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tashiro, Y.; Sato, T.; Satitmunnaithum, J.; Kinouchi, H.; Li, J.; Tanabata, S. Case Study on the Use of the Leaf-Count Method for Drip Fertigation in Outdoor Cucumber Cultivation in Reconstructed Fields Devastated by a Tsunami. Agriculture 2021, 11, 656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Trejo Valencia, R.; Sánchez Acosta, L.; Fortis Hernández, M.; Preciado Rangel, P.; Gallegos Robles, M.Á.; Antonio Cruz, R.d.C.; Vázquez Vázquez, C. Effect of seaweed aqueous extracts and compost on vegetative growth, yield, and nutraceutical quality of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) fruit. Agronomy 2018, 8, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. El-Mageed, A.; Taia, A.; El-Mageed, A.; Shimaa, A.; El-Saadony, M.T.; Abdelaziz, S.; Abdou, N.M. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Improve Growth, Morph-Physiological Responses, Water Productivity, and Yield of Rice Plants Under Full and Deficit Drip Irrigation. Rice 2022, 15, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Salim, H.A.; Kadhum, A.A.; Ali, A.F.; Saleh, U.N.; Jassim, N.H.; Hamad, A.R.; Attia, J.A.; Darwish, J.J.; Hassan, A.F. Response of cucumber plants to PGPR bacteria (Azospirillum brasilense, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Bacillus megaterium) and bread yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Syst. Rev. Pharm. 2021, 12, 969–975. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kaloterakis, N.; Van Delden, S.H.; Hartley, S.; De Deyn, G.B. Silicon application and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria consisting of six pure Bacillus species alleviate salinity stress in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L). Sci. Hortic. 2021, 288, 110383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Raza, A.; Ejaz, S.; Saleem, M.S.; Hejnak, V.; Ahmad, F.; Ahmed, M.A.A.; Alotaibi, S.S.; El-Shehawi, M.A.; Alsubeie, M.S.; Zuan, A.T.K. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria improve growth and yield related attributes of chili under low nitrogen availability. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0261468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. George, P.; Gupta, A.; Gopal, M.; Thomas, L.; Thomas, G.V. Indigenous rhizobacteria possessing abiotic stress tolerant traits promote vigorous growth of coconut seedlings via increased nutrient uptake and positive plant–microbe feedback. Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad. 2022, 88, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gupta, K.; Dubey, N.K.; Singh, S.P.; Kheni, J.K.; Gupta, S.; Varshney, A. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR): Current and Future Prospects for Crop Improvement. In Current Trends in Microbial Biotechnology for Sustainable Agriculture; Yadav, A.N., Singh, J., Singh, C., Yadav, N., Eds.; Environmental and Microbial Biotechnology book series; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mihalache, G.; Zamfirache, M.M.; Hamburda, S.; Stoleru, V.; Munteanu, N.; Stefan, M. Synergistic effect of Pseudomonas lini and Bacillus pumilus on runner bean growth enhancement. EEMJ 2016, 15, 1823–1831. [Google Scholar]
  18. Srivastava, P.; Jaggi, V.; Dasila, H.; Sahgal, M. Identification and characterisation of siderophore positive pseudomonas from north indian rosewood (dalbergia sissoo) roxb. Forest ecosystem. IJASR 2020, 10, 239–256. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bergottini, V.M.; Otegui, M.B.; Sosa, D.A.; Zapata, P.D.; Mulot, M.; Rebord, M.; Wiss, F.; Benrey, B.; Junier, P. Bio-inoculation of yerba mate seedlings (Ilex paraguariensis St. Hill.) with native plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: A sustainable alternative to improve crop yield. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2015, 51, 749–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Meena, N.; Saharan, B.S. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria improves growth in aloe vera. J. Plant Dev. Sci. 2017, 9, 811–815. [Google Scholar]
  21. Galleguillos, C.; Aguirre, C.; Barea, J.M.; Azcón, R. Growth promoting effect of two Sinorhizobium meliloti strains (a wild type and its genetically modified derivative) on a non-legume plant species in specific interaction with two arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Plant Sci. 2000, 159, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rosier, A.; Beauregard, P.B.; Bais, H.P. Quorum Quenching Activity of the PGPR Bacillus subtilis UD1022 Alters Nodulation Efficiency of Sinorhizobium meliloti on Medicago truncatula. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 596299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Guiñazú, L.B.; Andrés, J.A.; Del Papa, M.F.; Pistorio, M.; Rosas, S.B. Response of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) to single and mixed inoculation with phosphate-solubilizing bacteria and Sinorhizobium meliloti. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2010, 46, 185–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lafi, F.F.; Alam, I.; Bisseling, T.; Geurts, R.; Bajic, V.B.; Hirt, H.; Saad, M.M. Draft genome sequence of the plant growth–promoting rhizobacterium Acinetobacter radioresistens strain SA188 isolated from the desert plant Indigofera argentea. Genome Announc. 2017, 5, e01708–e01716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Saidi, S.; Cherif-Silini, H.; Chenari Bouket, A.; Silini, A.; Eshelli, M.; Luptakova, L.; Alenezi, F.N.; Belbahri, L. Improvement of Medicago sativa crops productivity by the co-inoculation of Sinorhizobium meliloti–actinobacteria under salt stress. Curr. Microbiol. 2021, 78, 1344–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, J.; Qu, F.; Liang, J.; Yang, M.; Hu, X. Bacillus velezensis SX13 promoted cucumber growth and production by accelerating the absorption of nutrients and increasing plant photosynthetic metabolism. Sci. Hortic. 2022, 301, 111151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. He, A.; Niu, S.; Yang, D.; Ren, W.; Zhao, L.; Sun, Y.; Meng, L.; Zhao, Q.; Paré, P.W.; Zhang, J. Two PGPR strains from the rhizosphere of Haloxylon ammodendron promoted growth and enhanced drought tolerance of ryegrass. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 161, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kumari, K.; Samantaray, S.; Sahoo, D.; Tripathy, B.C. Nitrogen, phosphorus and high CO2 modulate photosynthesis, biomass and lipid production in the green alga Chlorella vulgaris. Photosynth. Res. 2021, 148, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Su, B.; Wang, L.; Shangguan, Z. Morphological and physiological responses and plasticity in Robinia pseudoacacia to the coupling of water, nitrogen and phosphorus. J. Plant Nutr. Soil. Sci. 2021, 184, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gallart, M.; Paungfoo-Lonhienne, C.; Gonzalez, A.; Trueman, S.J. Nitrogen source influences the effect of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (Pgpr) on macadamia integrifolia. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Raffi, M.M.; Charyulu, P.B.B.N. Azospirillum-biofertilizer for sustainable cereal crop production: Current status. In Recent Developments in Applied Microbiology and Biochemistry; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; Volume 2, pp. 193–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sapre, S.; Gontia-Mishra, I.; Tiwari, S. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria ameliorates salinity stress in pea (Pisum sativum). J. Plant Growth Regul. 2022, 41, 647–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tith, S.; Duangkaew, P.; Laosuthipong, C.; Monkhung, S. Vermicompost efficacy in improvement of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) productivity, soil nutrients, and bacterial population under greenhouse condition. APST 2021, 27, APST-27. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ureche, M.A.L.; Pérez-Rodriguez, M.M.; Ortiz, R.; Monasterio, R.P.; Cohen, A.C. Rhizobacteria improve the germination and modify the phenolic compound profile of pepper (Capsicum annum L.). Rhizosphere 2021, 18, 100334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Peck, M.C.; Fisher, R.F.; Long, S.R. Diverse flavonoids stimulate NodD1 binding to nod gene promoters in Sinorhizobium meliloti. J. Bacteriol. Res. 2006, 188, 5417–5427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Santoyo, G.; Urtis-Flores, C.A.; Loeza-Lara, P.D.; Orozco-Mosqueda, M.; Glick, B.R. Rhizosphere colonization determinants by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). Biology 2021, 10, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Rosenblueth, M.; E, M.-R. Bacterial endophytes and their interactions with hosts. MPMI 2006, 19, 827–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Akköprü, A.; Akat, Ş.; Özaktan, H.; Gül, A.; Akbaba, M. The long-term colonization dynamics of endophytic bacteria in cucumber plants, and their effects on yield, fruit quality and Angular Leaf Spot Disease. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Navarro-Muñoz, C.E.; Balderas-Hernández, F.; Palacio-Rodríguez, R.; Sáenz-Mata, J. Caracterización de la capacidad de promoción de crecimiento vegetal de rizobacterias aisladas de plantas del Desierto Chihuahuense. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2021, 96. [Google Scholar]
  40. Carrillo, A.; Puente, M.; Castellanos, T.; Bashan, Y. Aplicaciones biotecnológicas de ecología microbiana. In Manual de Laboratorio. Biotechnological Applications of Microbial Ecology. Laboratory Manual; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  41. Akköprü, A.; Özaktan, H. Identification of rhizobacteria that increase yield and plant tolerance to angular leaf spot disease in cucumber. Plant Protect. Sci. 2018, 54, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Hargreaves, G.H.; Samani, Z.A. Estimating potential evapo-transpiration. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. 1982, 108, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Steiner, A.A. A universal method for preparing nutrient solutions of a certain desired composition. Plant Soil 1961, 15, 134–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Singleton, V.L.; Orthofer, R.; Lamuela-Raventós, R.M. Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants using a folic-ciocalteu reagent. Methods Enzymol. 1999, 299, 152–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lamaison, J.L.C.; Carnet, A. Contents in main flavonoid compounds of Crataegus Monogyna Jacq. and Crataegus laevigata (Poiret) DC flowers at different development stages. Pharm. Acta Helv. 1990, 65, 315–320. [Google Scholar]
  46. Brand-Williams, W.; Cuvelier, M.E.; Berset, C.L.W.T. Use of a free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 1995, 28, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hernández-Hernández, H.; Quiterio-Gutiérrez, T.; Cadenas-Pliego, G.; Ortega-Ortiz, H.; Hernández-Fuentes, A.D.; Cabrera de la Fuente, M.; Valdés-Reyna, J.; Juárez-Maldonado, A. Impact of selenium and copper nanoparticles on yield, antioxidant system, and fruit quality of tomato plants. Plants 2019, 8, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Bradford, M.M. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 1976, 72, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Amaral, M.B.; Ribeiro, T.G.; Alves, G.C.; Coelho, M.R.R.; Matta, F.D.P.; Baldani, J.I.; Baldani, V.L.D. The occurrence of rhizobacteria from Paspalum genotypes and their effects on plant growth. Sci. Agric. 2021, 79, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 11 01612 g001 550
Figure 1. Effect of PGPR on the content of phenolic compounds (a), flavonoids (b), antioxidant capacity (c), and vitamin C (d) in C. sativus fruit under greenhouse conditions. Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 1. Effect of PGPR on the content of phenolic compounds (a), flavonoids (b), antioxidant capacity (c), and vitamin C (d) in C. sativus fruit under greenhouse conditions. Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) according to Tukey’s test.
Plants 11 01612 g001
Plants 11 01612 g002 550
Figure 2. Effect of PGPR on total protein content in C. sativus fruit under greenhouse conditions. Data are shown as mean ± SD. Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 2. Effect of PGPR on total protein content in C. sativus fruit under greenhouse conditions. Data are shown as mean ± SD. Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) according to Tukey’s test.
Plants 11 01612 g002
Plants 11 01612 g003 550
Figure 3. Rhizobacterial population on C. sativus L. Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 3. Rhizobacterial population on C. sativus L. Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) according to Tukey’s test.
Plants 11 01612 g003
Table
Table 1. Effect of PGPR on growth of C. sativus cultivation under greenhouse conditions.
Table 1. Effect of PGPR on growth of C. sativus cultivation under greenhouse conditions.
TreatmentPlant Height
(cm)		Stem Diameter
(mm)		Root Length
(cm)		Secondary RootsDry Biomass
(g)		Fruit Length
(cm)		Fruit Diameter
(mm)		Yield
(kg/plant)
S. meliloti156.27 a4.97 a17.21 ab13 ab20.07 a21.33 a54.44 a5.96 b
P. paralactis164.60 a4.70 ab16.52 ab22 a14.13 b21.33 a52.02 a6.35 b
A. radioresistens163.33 a4.75 a20.61 a15 ab23.10 a22.67 a56.52 a6.94 a
Control146.38 b3.65 b8.75 b11 b12.57 b17.01 b46.03 b4.56 c
Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) according to Tukey’s test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zapata-Sifuentes, G.; Hernandez-Montiel, L.G.; Saenz-Mata, J.; Fortis-Hernandez, M.; Blanco-Contreras, E.; Chiquito-Contreras, R.G.; Preciado-Rangel, P. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Improve Growth and Fruit Quality of Cucumber under Greenhouse Conditions. Plants 2022, 11, 1612. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11121612

AMA Style

Zapata-Sifuentes G, Hernandez-Montiel LG, Saenz-Mata J, Fortis-Hernandez M, Blanco-Contreras E, Chiquito-Contreras RG, Preciado-Rangel P. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Improve Growth and Fruit Quality of Cucumber under Greenhouse Conditions. Plants. 2022; 11(12):1612. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11121612

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zapata-Sifuentes, Gerardo, Luis G. Hernandez-Montiel, Jorge Saenz-Mata, Manuel Fortis-Hernandez, Eduardo Blanco-Contreras, Roberto G. Chiquito-Contreras, and Pablo Preciado-Rangel. 2022. "Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Improve Growth and Fruit Quality of Cucumber under Greenhouse Conditions" Plants 11, no. 12: 1612. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11121612

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop