Effect of Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas fluorescens on Growth of Greenhouse Tomato and Rhizosphere Microbial Community

• Published in: The journal of Northeast Agricultural University Vol. 22; no. 3; pp. 32 - 42
• Main Authors: Xiao-ying, Ge, Chun-e, He, Tao, Li, Zhu, Ouyang
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd 01.09.2015; Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Beijing 100101, China; University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China%Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Beijing 100101, China
• Subjects: Bacillus subtilis; biolog; greenhouse tomato; PCR-DGGE; Pseudomonas fluorescens; qPCR; PCR-DGGE; Pseudomonas fluorescens; qPCR; biolog; greenhouse tomato; Bacillus subtilis
• ISSN: 1006-8104
• DOI: 10.1016/S1006-8104(16)30004-6

Bacillus subtilis （B. subtilis） and Pseudomonas fluorescens （P. fluorescens） are two of the most important plant growth promoting rhizobacteria （PGPR） in agriculture. An in situ trial was conducted on greenhouse tomato （Lycopersicum esculentum Mill.） to examine the effect of two bacterial strains, Bacillus subtilis （CGMCC 1.3343） and Pseudomonas fluorescens （CGMCC 1.1802）, on tomato growth, gray mold disease control, catabolic and genetic microbial features of indigenous rhizosphere bacteria under lownitrogen conditions. A commercial inoculant （ETS） was also tested as a comparison. Both B. subtilis and P. fluorescens promoted growth and biomass of seedlings, while only B. subtilis was efficient in reducing gray mold incidence in greenhouse tomato. The two bacterial strains could colonization in tomato rhizosphere soil at the end of experiment （10 days after the last inoculation）. Different AWCD trends and DGGE patterns were got in different bacterial treatments; however, analyses of microbial diversities showed that indigenous soil microbes did not seem to have significant differences at either the catabolic or genetic level among treatments. ETS, as a commercial microbial agent, promoted plant growth and gave a higher microbial diversity in rhizosphere soil.