Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan 10;15(1):e0227422. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227422

Table 2. Rank position and arbitrary values converted from the percentage (%) between the absolute value and the mean trait value (in vitro and in vivo determinations) for diazotroph/N scavenger bacterial strains considered to have high biotechnological potential to promote the growth of Solanum (rank greater than or equal to 10) according to the bonitur scale.

Isolate ID Isolation sourcea Genusb Plant growth-promoting traits
In vitro assays In vivo assays: tomato In vivo assays: lulo Bonitur scorek Rank
IAAc FePO4d AlPO4e Siderf RDWg SDWh RDWi SDWj
019S BS-ORG Enterobacter 3 3 2 0 2 1 1 2 14 1st
021T TR-ORG Rhizobium 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 12 2nd
027S BS-ORG Enterobacter 3 3 0 0 0 2 2 2 12 2nd
028S BS-ORG Enterobacter 3 3 1 0 1 0 2 2 12 2nd
04T TR-CH Rhizobium 3 1 0 2 0 2 2 2 12 2nd
014L LR-ORG Rhizobium 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 11 3rd
017T TR-CH Pseudomonas 1 3 1 2 1 0 1 2 11 3rd
022S BS-ORG Enterobacter 3 3 1 0 0 0 2 2 11 3rd
023S BS-ORG Pseudomonas 0 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 11 3rd
026S BS-ORG Cupriavidus 0 1 3 0 2 1 2 2 11 3rd
027L LR-SF Rhizobium 2 1 0 2 1 1 2 2 11 3rd
029T TR-CH Rhizobium 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 2 11 3rd
035T TR-SF Rhizobium 3 1 1 0 2 0 2 2 11 3rd
036T TR-SF Rhizobium 0 3 0 2 2 0 2 2 11 3rd
041T TR-CH Rhizobium 3 1 1 2 0 0 2 2 11 3rd
09S BS-SF Pseudomonas 1 2 3 0 2 0 1 2 11 3rd
015S BS-CH Enterobacter 3 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 10 4th
016S BS-ORG Pseudomonas 0 2 3 2 2 1 0 0 10 4th
024S BS-ORG Burkholderia 0 2 3 2 1 2 0 0 10 4th
025S BS-ORG Pseudomonas 0 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 10 4th
025T TR-ORG Rhizobium 1 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 10 4th
02T TR-ORG Rhizobium 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 2 10 4th
050T TR-CH Rhizobium 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 2 10 4th
08T TR-ORG Rhizobium 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 10 4th

aBS, soil; LR, lulo unwashed roots; TR, tomato unwashed roots; CH, horticulture soil under conventional management; ORG, horticulture soil under organic management; SF, secondary forest soil with no agricultural use.

bAccording to the RDP classifier.

cIAA, indole-3-acetic acid scores: 0, IAA below the detection limit; 1, ≤ 21.5 μg IAA mg-1 protein; 2, ≥ 21.5 and ≤ 44.7 μg IAA mg-1 protein; 3, ≥ 44.7 μg IAA mg-1 protein.

dFePO4 solubilization scores: 0, FePO4 solubilization below the detection limit; 1, ≤ 4.1 mg g-1; 2, ≥ 4.1 mg g-1 and mg g-1 ≤ 8.4; 3, ≥ 8.4 mg g-1.

eAlPO4 solubilization scores: 0, AlPO4 solubilization below the detection limit; 1, ≤ 2.5 mg g-1; 2, ≥ 2.5 mg g-1 and ≤ 5.2 mg g-1; 3, ≥ 5.2 mg g-1.

fSiderophore index (SI) scores (ratio of colored halo Ø:colony Ø): 0, no visible colored halo in T-CAS media; 1, ≤ 1.1 SI; 2, ≥ 1.1 SI and ≤ 2.4 SI; 3, ≥ 2.4 SI.

gRDW, root dry weight scores for tomato: 0, ≤ 0.23 g plant-1; 1, ≥ 0.23 g plant-1 and ≤ 0.27 g plant-1; 2, ≥ 0.27 g plant-1.

hSDW, shoot dry weight scores for tomato: 0, ≤ 0.79 g plant-1; 1, ≥ 0.79 g plant-1 and ≤ 0.87 g plant-1; 2, ≥ 0.87 g plant-1.

iRoot dry weight scores for lulo: 0, ≤ 0.11 g plant-1; 1, ≥ 0.11 g plant-1 and ≤ 0.13 g plant-1; 2, ≥ 0.13 g plant-1.

jShoot dry weight scores for lulo: 0, ≤ 0.30 g plant-1; 1, ≥ 0.30 g plant-1 and ≤ 0.33 g plant-1; 2, ≥ 0.33 g plant-1.

kSum of all assessment scores.