{"id":10079,"date":"2022-09-24T08:01:23","date_gmt":"2022-09-23T23:01:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.emukk.com\/WP\/?p=10079"},"modified":"2022-09-24T08:11:57","modified_gmt":"2022-09-23T23:11:57","slug":"effects-of-synthetic-microbial-consortia-derived-from-rhizosphere-soil-of-wheat-against-a-pathogen-causing-wheat-root-rot-disease","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.emukk.com\/WP\/en\/effects-of-synthetic-microbial-consortia-derived-from-rhizosphere-soil-of-wheat-against-a-pathogen-causing-wheat-root-rot-disease\/","title":{"rendered":"Effects of synthetic microbial consortia derived from rhizosphere soil of wheat against a pathogen causing wheat root rot disease"},"content":{"rendered":"

A group from North Central Agriculture Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Brookings, SD, USA, etc. has reported about the effects of synthetic microbial consortia derived from rhizosphere soil of wheat against rhizoctonia solani AG8, a pathogen causing root rot disease.
\nhttps:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC9473337\/<\/a><\/p>\n

The effects of bacteria, including 14 single strains and 10 SynComs, on wheat root rot disease caused by R. solani AG8 were evaluated in soil in the greenhouse. After 3\u2009weeks, compared with wheat growth in AG8 inoculated soil (CK1, CK2), wheat treated with some single bacterial strains and SynComs reduced root rot at different levels. Among them, wheat treated with single bacterial strains (Pseudomonas sp. B5, Rhodococcus erythropolis B43, Chryseobacterium soldanellicola P38, and Pedobacter sp. P44) and SynComs (C1, C3, C4, C7, C8, C9, and C10) significantly reduced wheat root rot score, compared with the controls (CK1 and CK2) in AG8 inoculated soil. Further, the fresh root weight of wheat treated with single bacterial strains (Pseudomonas spp. B5 and B11, and Chryseobacterium sp. B7) and SynComs (C1, C4, C7, C8, C9, and C10) were greater than those of the controls in AG8 inoculated soil.<\/p>\n

SynCom 1(C1): Pseudomonas sp. B5, Pseudomonas sp. B11, Pseudomonas sp. B12, Pseudomonas sp. P25
\nSynCom 2(C2): Chryseobacterium sp. B7, Chryseobacterium soldanellicola P38, Chryseobacterium sp. P43
\nSynCom 3(C3): Sphingomonas sp. B17, Cupriavidus campinensis B20, Asticcacaulis sp. B27, Rhodococcus erythropolis B43
\nSynCom 4(C4): Cupriavidus campinensis B20, Asticcacaulis sp. B27, Rhodococcus erythropolis B43, Chryseobacterium soldanellicola P38
\nSynCom 5(C5): Cupriavidus campinensis B20, Rhodococcus erythropolis B43, Janthinobacterium lividum BJ, Chryseobacterium soldanellicola P38
\nSynCom 6(C6): Streptomyces sp. B6, Chryseobacterium sp. B7, Pseudomonas sp. B12, Sphingomonas sp. B17
\nSynCom 7(C7): Pseudomonas sp. B5, Streptomyces sp. B6, Chryseobacterium sp. B7, Pseudomonas sp. B11
\nSynCom 8(C8): Pseudomonas sp. B12, Sphingomonas sp. B17, Cupriavidus campinensis B20, Asticcacaulis sp. B27
\nSynCom 9(C9): Pseudomonas sp. B12, Rhodococcus erythropolis B43, Janthinobacterium lividum BJ, Pedobacter sp. P44
\nSynCom 10(C10): All 14 bacterial strains<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A group from North Central Agriculture Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Brookings, SD, USA, etc. has reported ab<\/p><\/div>\n

\u7d9a\u304d\u3092\u8aad\u3080<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10079","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-technology-en"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t