IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2022i1p121-d1021909.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Response of Winter Wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) to Selected Biostimulants under Drought Conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Dominika Radzikowska-Kujawska

    (Department of Agronomy, Poznań University of Life Sciences, 60-632 Poznań, Poland)

  • Paula John

    (Department of Agronomy, Poznań University of Life Sciences, 60-632 Poznań, Poland)

  • Tomasz Piechota

    (Department of Agronomy, Poznań University of Life Sciences, 60-632 Poznań, Poland)

  • Marcin Nowicki

    (Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, 2505 EJ Chapman Drive, Knoxville, TN 37996-4560, USA)

  • Przemysław Łukasz Kowalczewski

    (Department of Food Technology of Plant Origin, Poznań University of Life Sciences, 60-624 Poznań, Poland)

Abstract

To prevent the staggering degradation of the environment, restrictions in the use of plant protection products and fertilizers are being strengthened every year. Therefore, methods for improving plant tolerance to unfavorable environmental conditions are sought to positively affect both plants and the natural environment. Here, we evaluated and compared the efficacy of four commercial biostimulants on the tolerance of winter wheat to drought stress. The effects of the following biological agents: Bacillus sp., soil bacterial strains, free amino acids, and humic substances on winter wheat were assessed in a pot experiment under full hydration soil moisture and under drought. Among the studied biostimulants, the two based on bacterial strains had the strongest beneficial effects on improving the tolerance of wheat plants to drought. In plants treated with either of these two, the highest level of CO 2 assimilation was recorded under drought. Moreover, in the same plants, the decrease in transpiration value due to drought was the smallest. The highest stomatal conductance under drought was also noted in these same plants. The results of chlorophyll fluorescence also indicate the smallest damage to the photosynthetic apparatus in the plants on which these bacterial biostimulants were used. Under drought, the lowest initial fluorescence values were noted for these bacterial preparations, as were the highest values of maximum fluorescence. On the other hand, a parameter indicating stress was reduced due to drought in all plants, except for those treated with one of these preparations. Another parameter showing the efficiency of the use of light photons in the photosynthesis process increased only in plants treated with one of these preparations, whereas for other plants it decreased due to drought, with the smallest decrease observed in plants treated with the other preparations. The most effective work of the photosynthetic apparatus in such treated plants was observed by the fastest transport of electrons through photosystems under drought. Additionally, under drought, the highest grain yield was obtained in plants treated with one of these bacterial preparations. The drought stress resistance index indicated that among all tested formulations, plants treated with either of these bacterial preparations scored the best. The use of these two biostimulants is recommended for comparative efficacy studies in the field, to help combat the drought-related yield losses of wheat.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominika Radzikowska-Kujawska & Paula John & Tomasz Piechota & Marcin Nowicki & Przemysław Łukasz Kowalczewski, 2022. "Response of Winter Wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) to Selected Biostimulants under Drought Conditions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2022:i:1:p:121-:d:1021909
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/1/121/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/1/121/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2022:i:1:p:121-:d:1021909. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.