Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
Texto Completo: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1808-1657000102016 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/213204 |
Resumo: | Bacillus has been widely studied and used for the control of pests and diseases. The adapted protocol proposed by POLANCZYK (2004) proved to be more efficient than the one by the World Health Organization (WHO, 1985) to isolate edaphic strains of Bacillus. However, it has not been assessed for isolation of endophytic strains, which are much less abundant in the nature and more difficult to be isolated. This study aimed to compare two methodological procedures for isolation of Bacillus, established by the WHO (1985) and by POLANCZYK (2004), regarding their efficiency for isolation of endophytics and edaphics Bacillus strains from inside the root tissue of sugarcane, as well as from the associated soil sample, collected from 11 locations; and to compare the density of bacteria in both environments. Endophytic and edaphic strains of Bacillus were isolated by both procedures. However, the isolation protocol performed by POLANCZYK (2004) made more efficient by having a greater number of colony forming units (CFU) per gram of soil and root indicating that this procedure is more useful, especially for isolation of endophytic strains of Bacillus, which are much less abundant in the nature than edaphic strains, being therefore more difficult to be isolated. Using the Polanczyk protocol (2004), Bacillus strains were recovered from all roots (endophytic) and soil (edaphic) samples of all the 11 fields, suggesting that the plant root may be another important source for isolation of Bacillus besides the soil. Higher densities of Bacillus were isolated from the edaphic environment compared with the endophytic environment, with significant differences when isolated by Polanczyk method (2004). |
id |
UNSP_77be2b10cd07a103f13344ecc16387b6 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/213204 |
network_acronym_str |
UNSP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository_id_str |
2946 |
spelling |
Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fieldsDois métodos para isolamento de Bacillus spp. endofíticos e edáficos de canaviaisbiological controlbeneficial bacteriasoilrootendosporecontrole biológicobactéria benéficasoloraizendósporosBacillus has been widely studied and used for the control of pests and diseases. The adapted protocol proposed by POLANCZYK (2004) proved to be more efficient than the one by the World Health Organization (WHO, 1985) to isolate edaphic strains of Bacillus. However, it has not been assessed for isolation of endophytic strains, which are much less abundant in the nature and more difficult to be isolated. This study aimed to compare two methodological procedures for isolation of Bacillus, established by the WHO (1985) and by POLANCZYK (2004), regarding their efficiency for isolation of endophytics and edaphics Bacillus strains from inside the root tissue of sugarcane, as well as from the associated soil sample, collected from 11 locations; and to compare the density of bacteria in both environments. Endophytic and edaphic strains of Bacillus were isolated by both procedures. However, the isolation protocol performed by POLANCZYK (2004) made more efficient by having a greater number of colony forming units (CFU) per gram of soil and root indicating that this procedure is more useful, especially for isolation of endophytic strains of Bacillus, which are much less abundant in the nature than edaphic strains, being therefore more difficult to be isolated. Using the Polanczyk protocol (2004), Bacillus strains were recovered from all roots (endophytic) and soil (edaphic) samples of all the 11 fields, suggesting that the plant root may be another important source for isolation of Bacillus besides the soil. Higher densities of Bacillus were isolated from the edaphic environment compared with the endophytic environment, with significant differences when isolated by Polanczyk method (2004).Bacillus tem sido amplamente estudado e usado para o controle de pragas e doenças. O protocolo adaptado proposto por POLANCZYK (2004) mostrou-se mais eficiente do que o da Organização Mundial de Saúde (WHO, 1985) para isolar cepas edáficas de Bacillus. No entanto, não foi avaliado quanto ao isolamento de estirpes endofíticas, que são muito menos abundantes na natureza e mais difíceis de isolar. Este estudo teve como objetivos comparar dois procedimentos metodológicos para o isolamento de Bacillus, o estabelecido pela OMS (WHO, 1985) e o de POLANCZYK (2004), quanto a sua eficiência para o isolamento de estirpes endofitas e edáficas de Bacillus originárias do interior do tecido radicular de cana-de-açúcar, bem como de amostras de solos associados, coletada de 11 locais; e comparar a densidade de bactérias em ambos os ambientes. As cepas endofíticas e edáficas de Bacillus foram isoladas por ambos os procedimentos. No entanto, o protocolo de isolamento realizado por POLANCZYK (2004) demonstrou-se mais eficiente por gerar maior número de unidades de formação de colônias (CFU) por grama de solo e raiz, indicando que esse procedimento é mais útil, especialmente para isolamento de estirpes endofíticas de Bacillus, que são muito menos abundantes na natureza do que as cepas edáficas, sendo, portanto, mais difíceis de serem isoladas. Usando o protocolo de POLANCZYK (2004), as cepas de Bacillus foram isoladas de todas as amostras de raízes (endofíticas) e de solo (edáficas) de todos os 11 campos, sugerindo que a raiz da planta pode ser outra fonte importante de isolamento de Bacillus além do solo. As densidades mais altas de Bacillus foram isoladas do ambiente edáfico em comparação com o ambiente endofítico, com diferenças significativas quando isoladas pelo método de POLANCZYK (2004).Instituto Biológico, Centro ExperimentalUniversidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Faculdade de Ciências Agrarias e VeterináriasCentro Universitario de GurupiInstituto Agronômico de Campinas, Centro de Solos e Recursos AgroambientaisUniversidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Faculdade de Ciências Agrarias e VeterináriasInstituto BiológicoInstituto BiológicoUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Centro Universitario de GurupiInstituto Agronômico de CampinasFerreira, Maria Elízia PachecoLeite, Luís GarrigósPolanczyk, Ricardo Antônio [UNESP]Suzuki, Marise TanakaFreitas, Raquel De PaulaBueno, Roselaine Nunes Da SilvaSilva, Raphael Satochi Abe Da2021-07-14T10:51:41Z2021-07-14T10:51:41Z2018-01-22info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article-application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1808-1657000102016Arquivos do Instituto Biológico. Instituto Biológico, v. 84, p. -, 2018.1808-1657http://hdl.handle.net/11449/21320410.1590/1808-1657000102016S1808-16572017000100220S1808-16572017000100220.pdfSciELOreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengArquivos do Instituto Biológicoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-06-06T15:50:41Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/213204Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-05T19:09:39.235650Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields Dois métodos para isolamento de Bacillus spp. endofíticos e edáficos de canaviais |
title |
Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields |
spellingShingle |
Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields Ferreira, Maria Elízia Pacheco biological control beneficial bacteria soil root endospore controle biológico bactéria benéfica solo raiz endósporos |
title_short |
Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields |
title_full |
Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields |
title_fullStr |
Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields |
title_full_unstemmed |
Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields |
title_sort |
Two methods for isolation of endophytic and edaphic Bacillus spp. from sugarcane fields |
author |
Ferreira, Maria Elízia Pacheco |
author_facet |
Ferreira, Maria Elízia Pacheco Leite, Luís Garrigós Polanczyk, Ricardo Antônio [UNESP] Suzuki, Marise Tanaka Freitas, Raquel De Paula Bueno, Roselaine Nunes Da Silva Silva, Raphael Satochi Abe Da |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Leite, Luís Garrigós Polanczyk, Ricardo Antônio [UNESP] Suzuki, Marise Tanaka Freitas, Raquel De Paula Bueno, Roselaine Nunes Da Silva Silva, Raphael Satochi Abe Da |
author2_role |
author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto Biológico Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) Centro Universitario de Gurupi Instituto Agronômico de Campinas |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Ferreira, Maria Elízia Pacheco Leite, Luís Garrigós Polanczyk, Ricardo Antônio [UNESP] Suzuki, Marise Tanaka Freitas, Raquel De Paula Bueno, Roselaine Nunes Da Silva Silva, Raphael Satochi Abe Da |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
biological control beneficial bacteria soil root endospore controle biológico bactéria benéfica solo raiz endósporos |
topic |
biological control beneficial bacteria soil root endospore controle biológico bactéria benéfica solo raiz endósporos |
description |
Bacillus has been widely studied and used for the control of pests and diseases. The adapted protocol proposed by POLANCZYK (2004) proved to be more efficient than the one by the World Health Organization (WHO, 1985) to isolate edaphic strains of Bacillus. However, it has not been assessed for isolation of endophytic strains, which are much less abundant in the nature and more difficult to be isolated. This study aimed to compare two methodological procedures for isolation of Bacillus, established by the WHO (1985) and by POLANCZYK (2004), regarding their efficiency for isolation of endophytics and edaphics Bacillus strains from inside the root tissue of sugarcane, as well as from the associated soil sample, collected from 11 locations; and to compare the density of bacteria in both environments. Endophytic and edaphic strains of Bacillus were isolated by both procedures. However, the isolation protocol performed by POLANCZYK (2004) made more efficient by having a greater number of colony forming units (CFU) per gram of soil and root indicating that this procedure is more useful, especially for isolation of endophytic strains of Bacillus, which are much less abundant in the nature than edaphic strains, being therefore more difficult to be isolated. Using the Polanczyk protocol (2004), Bacillus strains were recovered from all roots (endophytic) and soil (edaphic) samples of all the 11 fields, suggesting that the plant root may be another important source for isolation of Bacillus besides the soil. Higher densities of Bacillus were isolated from the edaphic environment compared with the endophytic environment, with significant differences when isolated by Polanczyk method (2004). |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-01-22 2021-07-14T10:51:41Z 2021-07-14T10:51:41Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1808-1657000102016 Arquivos do Instituto Biológico. Instituto Biológico, v. 84, p. -, 2018. 1808-1657 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/213204 10.1590/1808-1657000102016 S1808-16572017000100220 S1808-16572017000100220.pdf |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1808-1657000102016 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/213204 |
identifier_str_mv |
Arquivos do Instituto Biológico. Instituto Biológico, v. 84, p. -, 2018. 1808-1657 10.1590/1808-1657000102016 S1808-16572017000100220 S1808-16572017000100220.pdf |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Arquivos do Instituto Biológico |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
- application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto Biológico |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto Biológico |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
SciELO reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
instacron_str |
UNESP |
institution |
UNESP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1808129028003987456 |