| Title |
Differential modulation of phytoelemental composition by selected Pseudomonas spp.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
3 Biotech, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13205-018-1400-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aswathy Jayakumar, Athira Perinchery, Farha M. Jaffer, E. K. Radhakrishnan |
| Abstract |
Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) are bioresources with potential application in ecofriendly agricultural practices. The beneficial effects of PGPR have been attributed to their ability to produce phytohormone, organic acid, siderophore, and also due to nitrogen fixation among others. In the present study, previously isolated plant growth promoting rhizospheric Pseudomonas spp. were evaluated for growth enhancement effect in Vigna unguiculata seedlings. Elemental profiling of treated plant was further carried out by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy. Results of the study showed significant increase in growth parameters such as shoot length, root length and root numbers for treated plants when compared to control. Most of the macro and micro elements were also found to get modulated by interaction with applied Pseudomonas spp. However, a differential modulation was observed for plants when treated with each of the Pseudomonas spp., which could be due to their variable interaction with the selected plant. The results of the study indicate the role of each of the associated microbial partner to specifically influence the plant nutrient mobilization along the soil plant axis. The cumulative effect of the plant microbiome hence may decide the global nutritional status of plants as per the available environmental conditions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 23% |
| Researcher | 3 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 46% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 8% |
| Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,017,219
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from 3 Biotech
#358
of 1,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,591
of 301,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age from 3 Biotech
#13
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,252 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,800 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.