ArticleBMC plant biology2026
Different responses of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid) and rhizosphere microorganisms to application of single or mixed plant growth-promoting bacterial stains.
Article in BMC plant biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPlant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) benefit plant growth and development via different direct and indirect mechanisms. However, our knowledge of rhizosphere responses at different plant growth stages to diverse PGPB applications in sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid) is limited. In this study, four strains of bacterial genera, Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus PAL5 (PAL5), Streptomyces chartreusis WZS021 (WZS021), Bacillus spp. CA1 (CA1), and Pseudomonas mosselii CN11 (CN11) were inoculated into two sugarcane varieties (B8, ROC22) as single and mixed cultures in a pot experiment. The effects of single and combined application of PGPB on nitrogen metabolism and agronomic traits of sugarcane, as well as on chemical and biological properties and the diversity of microbial communities in the rhizosphere, were observed.
resultsThe inoculation of PGPB resulted in changes in microbial communities, which improved soil N and P cycling and increased the activities of GOT, GPT, NR, and GS, chlorophyll content (SPAD), plant height, and biomass in sugarcane. High-throughput sequencing (HTS) analysis revealed that Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Chloroflexi, and Actinobacteria were the main microbial communities at the phylum level. Spearman's correlation analysis showed that Bacillus (a genus of Firmicutes) was positively correlated with the physiological properties of sugarcane and the physicochemical properties of soil. Using MicroPITA analysis, this study found that PAL5 treatment was the most representative at the seedling stage, and the maximum diversity of soil bacteria occurred at the elongation stage of sugarcane. At the elongation stage, the species diversity in the PAL5 treatment was abundant, and the species composition was the least similar to that in other treatments. In the WZS021 treatment, there were multiple PGPB and the highest diversity of soil bacteria, which could be beneficial throughout the entire growth duration of sugarcane.
conclusionsInoculation of the strains of bacterial genera Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus PAL5 (PAL5), Streptomyces chartreusis WZS021 (WZS021), Bacillus spp. CA1 (CA1), and Pseudomonas mosselii CN11 (CN11) could enrich the beneficial bacteria in sugarcane. Bacillus and Firmicutes were the key strains that improved soil physicochemical properties and sugarcane growth indexes. Therefore, to develop a new environmental protection biological agent, we should focus on its effects on the enrichment of soil Bacillus and Firmicutes, as well as on different sugarcane varieties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.