. 2024 Dec 31;99(2):e01803-24. doi: 10.1128/jvi.01803-24

TABLE 4.

Efficiency of bacterial endophytes against GBNV and its effect on plant growth promotion^a^,^b

S. no	Treatment details	Mean PDI^c	Percent reduction over control	Plant height (cm)^d	Number of flowers^e	Fruit weight /plant (g)	Anticipated yield (t/ha)
T1	B. melitensis (1.5%) delivered in water	19.89^c (26.49)	33.92	123.63^a (11.11)	16.92^a (24.27)	448.2^b (21.16)	62.2^b (9.86)
T2	B. velezensis (1.5%) delivered in water	18.1^d (25.3)	39.86	123.70^a (11.12)	14.87^c (22.67)	549.3^a (23.43)	70.5^a (10.29)
T3	B. melitensis (1.5%) delivered in 10% buttermilk	18.9^cd (25.91)	37.20	122.53^b (11.06)	16.40^ab (23.93)	447.4^b (21.15)	61.4^b (10.70)
T4	B. velezensis (1.5%) delivered in 10% buttermilk	18.64^cd (25.57)	38.07	122.83^b (11.08)	15.30b^c (23.02)	550.6^a (23.46)	70.2^a (10.59)
T5	Farmer’s practice	25.8^b (27.8)	14.28	107.27^c (10.35)	11.07^d (19.430)	366.3^c (19.13)	43.1^c (9.4)
T6	Control	30.1^a (31.2)	–^f	104.73^d (10.23)	11.17^d (19.51)	267.0^d (16.33)	40.2^d (9.23)
	SE (d)	0.556	–	0.565	0.634	0.349	0.401

^{^a}

Plants were selected randomly and tagged to record observations on various traits.

^{^b}

The values of various triats were normalized to 0–1 scale and ANOVA was carried out.

^{^c}

Values are average of 30 plants.

^{^d}

Values in the parentheses are arcsine-transformed values.

^{^e}

In a column, means followed by a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.

^{^f}

“–” indicates nill.