Skip to main content
Download PDF

Unveiling the efficacy of Bacillus faecalis and composted biochar in alleviating arsenic toxicity in maize

BMC Plant Biology volume 24, Article number: 660 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Arsenic (As) contamination is a major environmental pollutant that adversely affects plant physiological processes and can hinder nutrients and water availability. Such conditions ultimately resulted in stunted growth, low yield, and poor plant health. Using rhizobacteria and composted biochar (ECB) can effectively overcome this problem. Rhizobacteria have the potential to enhance plant growth by promoting nutrient uptake, producing growth hormones, and suppressing diseases. Composted biochar can enhance plant growth by improving aeration, water retention, and nutrient cycling. Its porous structure supports beneficial microorganisms, increasing nutrient uptake and resilience to stressors, ultimately boosting yields while sequestering carbon. Therefore, the current study was conducted to investigate the combined effect of previously isolated Bacillus faecalis (B. faecalis) and ECB as amendments on maize cultivated under different As levels (0, 300, 600 mg As/kg soil). Four treatments (control, 0.5% composted biochar (0.5ECB), B. faecalis, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis) were applied in four replications following a completely randomized design. Results showed that the 0.5ECB + B. faecalis treatment led to a significant rise in maize plant height (~ 99%), shoot length (~ 55%), root length (~ 82%), shoot fresh (~ 87%), and shoot dry weight (~ 96%), root fresh (~ 97%), and dry weight (~ 91%) over the control under 600As stress. There was a notable increase in maize chlorophyll a (~ 99%), chlorophyll b (~ 81%), total chlorophyll (~ 94%), and shoot N, P, and K concentration compared to control under As stress, also showing the potential of 0.5ECB + B. faecalis treatment. Consequently, the findings suggest that applying 0.5ECB + B. faecalis is a strategy for alleviating As stress in maize plants.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Among different heavy metals [1,2,3,4,5,6], arsenic (As) can severely impact plant growth and development due to its toxicity [7]. When plants absorb As, it disrupts various physiological processes, leading to stunted growth, reduced biomass accumulation, and impaired nutrient uptake [8]. Furthermore, As also has detrimental effects on plants, affecting photosynthesis, enzyme activities, and cellular functions [9]. It induces oxidative stress, generating harmful reactive oxygen species (ROS) that damage cell components [10]. Such conditions severely hamper plant growth and productivity, especially in contaminated areas. The need for time is to adopt effective mitigation measures to preserve crop health and yield.

Rhizobacteria, also known as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), are important for enhancing plant health through various growth-promoting mechanisms [11]. They thrive on root exudates, which contain essential nutrients like free amino acids, carbohydrates, vitamins, and crucial elements, providing them with the necessary nourishment [12]. They also contribute significantly to plant growth and development by synthesizing phytohormones that stimulate growth, fixing atmospheric nitrogen (N), and producing enzymes that aid in mineral solubilization, thus regulating plant growth [13, 14].

Composted biochar (ECB) is a combination of organic materials (compost) and pyrolyzed waste materials [15,16,17]. It can support the activity of rhizobacteria and helps counteract heavy metal toxicity in soil by creating a favorable environment for plant growth [18,19,20,21,22]. Its porous structure offers a protected habitat for beneficial rhizobacteria, fostering their interaction with plant roots and reducing arsenic availability [23, 24]. This dual effect protects plants from arsenic toxicity while enhancing soil structure and nutrient retention capacity [25], showing composted biochar’s potential to boost plant-microbe partnerships and alleviate environmental pressures.

Maize, a vital crop in global agriculture from the Poaceae family, plays diverse roles in food production, providing essentials like grits, chapatti, and starch solutions [26]. Rich in phytochemicals such as proteins, vitamins, minerals, ashes, and amino acids, maize contributes to human well-being [27]. Its high carbohydrate content makes it an excellent energy source. However, arsenic toxicity threatens maize cultivation by hindering water and nutrient absorption, leading to stunted growth and lower yields [22, 28, 29].

A current study was conducted to investigate the influence of Bacillus faecalis(B. faecalis) rhizobacteria and ECB on maize cultivated with and without As toxicity. This research covers the knowledge gap regarding the use of B. faecalis and ECB as sole and combined amendments against As toxicity in maize. The novelty of the current study lies in the selection of B. faecalis and ECB as sole or combined efficacious amendments for the minimization of As toxicity in maize. It is hypothesized that B. faecalis with ECB might have better potential to improve maize growth with and without As toxicity.

Materials and methods

Pot experiment setup

A pot experiment was conducted in the research area of the Department of Botany Islamia University Bahawalpur to examine the effect of Bacillus faecalis inoculation and composted biochar on the growth, nutrient concentration, and antioxidant activity in maize cultivated in arsenic (As) contaminated soil. A composite soil sample was made using six samples for the pre-experimental soil analysis. The pre-experimental soil characteristics are provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Pre-experimental soil and irrigation characteristics
Full size table

Biochar Preparation

Citrus fruit waste was sourced from a local fruit and vegetable market, situated at coordinates 30°11’29.8’’N and 71°28’48.8’’E, and was used to produce biochar. The collected waste was initially sun-dried and subsequently cut into small pieces. These prepared waste materials underwent pyrolysis under aerobic conditions at a controlled temperature of 525 ± 11 °C. Compost and biochar were mixed manually in a 1:1 ratio [15] following incubation for 21 days to get a homogenized product. The physicochemical properties of the composted biochar generated in the pre-experimental phase are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Pre-experimental biochar and compost characteristics
Full size table

Seed collection and sterilization

In this study, maize seeds (Cimmyt-Pak) were purchased from a seed dealer of the Government of Punjab in Multan, Punjab, Pakistan. A two-step process was employed to ensure surface sterilization. First, the seeds were immersed in 70% ethanol for 5 min, followed by a 10-minute treatment with 5% sodium hypochlorite. Subsequently, the seeds were thoroughly rinsed with distilled water and left to soak for 24 h.

Characterization for genetic and biochemical traits

The isolate was cultured on LB agar plates and sent to Macrogen in South Korea for 16 S rRNA sequencing through Sanger technology. PCR amplification was performed using the primers 27 F (5’-AGA GTT TGA TCM TGG CTC AG-3’) and 1492R (5’-TAC GGY TAC CTT GTT ACG ACT T-3’), along with the universal sequencing primers 785 F (5’-GGA TTA GAT ACC CTG GTA-3’) and 907R (5’-CCG TCA ATT CMT TTR AGT TT-3’) to ensure overlapping sequences. The resulting crude sequences were then trimmed and edited using BioEdit software [42]. The final sequences were performed [43] to compare a query sequence against a public sequence to find the closest related organism in the Genbank database. Enzyme 1-aminocyclopropane-1- carboxylate (ACC) deaminase activity was tested using the method of Glick et al. [44]. As described by Sarwar et al. [45], the protocol was followed to determine Indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) production [45]. Isolate’s ability to solubilize zinc was detected following the procedure, as Kumar et al. reported [46]. Siderophore production was tested following the method described by Schwyn and Neilands [47]. A qualitative test was performed to determine chitinase production following the technique of Dunne et al. [48]. HCN (cyanogen) production was tested using the procedure described by Bakker and Schippers [49].

Inoculum preparation and seed inoculation

The culture of B. faecalis was prepared in an erlenmeyer flask (50 ml) containing 20 ml of Luria-Bertani (LB) broth media (composition per liter; 10 g tryptone, 5 g yeast extract, 10 g NaCl, and 7.2 pH) [50]. The flasks were incubated at 28 ± 1 °C for 72 h in a shaking incubator (100 rpm). After that, broth culture was shaken at 4 °C for 15 min to harvest the bacterial cells. Using spectrophotometer, inoculum optical density was maintained 0.5 in sterile LB broth media.

Inoculation of maize seeds with B. faecalis was performed using peat and 10% sugar solution as a sticky material. For 50 g seeds, 10 g peat was used while 10 ml of sugar solution was added. After inoculation, the seeds were allowed to dry under controlled conditions to ensure proper adhesion of the inoculum to the seed surface. The plant growth-promoting characteristics of B. faecalis are provided in Table 2.

Treatment plan

Total 4 treatments, i.e., control (no B. faecalis + no 0.5ECB), B. faecalis, 0.5% composted biochar (0.5ECB) and B. faecalis + 0.50ECB were applied under 0 (0As), 300 (300As) and 600 mg As/ kg soil (600 As) following completely randomized design. The levels of As were selected on the basis of literature [51, 52]. For the introduction of As toxicity as per the treatment plan, As2O3 was used. The salt was Sigma-Aldrich’s product, which had CAS No.=1327-53-3; Batch No.=BCCL3474; faint grey in colour and powder form. All treatments were applied in 4 replicates [48, 49]. For the artificial spiking of As at the rate of 300 and 600 mg As/ kg soil As2O3 was mixed manually. After that, 65% moisture content was maintained in the soil, and it was incubated at 25 ± 3 °C for 21 days. The mixing was continued during the incubation period with an interval of 7 days.

Pot preparation, sowing and growth conditions

A plastic container with dimensions of 15 inches in width and 45 inches in depth was loaded with 10 kg of soil. The initial physicochemical characteristics of the soil before the experiment are outlined in Table 1. Ten seeds were sown in each container, and, following a period of seven days from germination, two healthy seedlings were retained after thinning. The light (500 µmol m− 2 s− 1) was maintained 16-hour light/8-hour dark cycle using a combination of natural sunlight supplemented with LED bulb. Throughout the experiment, temperature was maintained at 25 ± 10 °C while humidity was 55 ± 7%.

Fertilizer

To address the maize nutritional requirements, the soil was enriched with nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) in recommended amounts: 294 kg per ha of nitrogen (~ 1.46 g per 10 kg of soil), 170 kg per ha of phosphorus (~ 0.85 g per 10 kg of soil), and 124 kg per ha of potassium (~ 0.62 g per 10 kg of soil). The fertilizers were mixed in soil at the time of pot preparation. Urea served as the nitrogen source, while single superphosphate was administered for phosphorus and potassium, meeting the prescribed criteria.

Irrigation

At the beginning of the experiment, 100 ml of sterilized water was used for the initial irrigation of each pot. Subsequently, a daily water supply of 50 ml was given to each pot until the seedlings were ready for harvesting. The initial 100 ml water was added to ensure that the soil in each pot maintained a field capacity of 60%.

Harvesting and data collection

After 35 days from the sowing date, the seedlings were harvested. Various morphological attributes, including shoot and root length and fresh and dry weights of shoot, leaves, and root, were measured immediately after harvesting using a standard measuring scale and an analytical grade digital balance. For the determination of dry weight, samples were oven-dried at 70 °C for 72 h to achieve the constant weight. Additionally, fresh leaf samples were collected and stored in liquid nitrogen to preserve them for further biochemical analysis.

Chlorophyll contents

A pestle and mortar were used to crush 0.5 g of freshly obtained leaf samples with 20 ml of 80% acetone to measure the chlorophyll content. The mixture was centrifuged for 15 min at 3000 rpm rotations per minute, and absorbance readings were taken by taking 1 ml supernatant in a glass cuvette at wavelengths of 645 and 663 nm using a spectrophotometer (UV-1280 UV-VIS Spectrophotometer, Shimadzu) [53].

$$\text{Chlorophyll}\, \text{a} \left(\frac{\text{mg}}{\text{g}}\right)=\frac{\left(12.7 \times \text{A}663\right)- \left(2.69 \times \text{A}645\right)\times \text{V}}{1000 \times \text{W}}$$
$$\text{Chlorophyll}\, \text{b} \left(\frac{\text{mg}}{\text{g}}\right)=\frac{\left(22.9 \times \text{A}645\right)- \left(4.68 \times \text{A}663\right)\times \text{V}}{1000 \times \text{W}}$$
$$\text{Total}\, \text{Chlorophyll} \left(\frac{\text{mg}}{\text{g}}\right)=\frac{20.2\left(\text{A}645\right)+8.02\left(\text{A}663\right)\times \text{V}}{1000 \times \text{W}}$$

Measurement of antioxidant activity

We assessed superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity on a spectrophotometer (UV-1280 UV-VIS Spectrophotometer, Shimadzu) by observing the inhibition of nitro blue tetrazolium (NBT) reduction in the presence of riboflavin [54]. Peroxidase (POD) activity was determined using a spectrophotometer (UV-1280 UV-VIS Spectrophotometer, Shimadzu) following the protocol outlined by [55]. Catalase (CAT) activity was evaluated by measuring the decrease in absorbance at 240 nm on a spectrophotometer (UV-1280 UV-VIS Spectrophotometer, Shimadzu) resulting from H2O2 decomposition [56]. Ascorbate peroxidase (APX) activity was determined by monitoring ascorbate oxidation in the presence of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) [57]. To measure malondialdehyde (MDA) levels, we exposed sample extracts to a reaction with thiobarbituric acid (TBA) to form a coloured complex, then measured absorbance at 532 nm using a spectrophotometer (UV-1280 UV-VIS Spectrophotometer, Shimadzu) [58]. The assessment of Glutathione reductase (GR) activity involved observing the rate of NADPH oxidation using the extinction coefficient of NADPH, measured by monitoring the decrease in absorbance at 340 nm using a spectrophotometer (UV-1280 UV-VIS Spectrophotometer, Shimadzu) over one minute [59].

Electrolyte Leakage

Initially, leaves were cleaned with deionized water to examine electrolyte leakage. We then placed standardized leaf samples in test tubes filled with 20 ml of deionized water and kept them at 25 °C for 24 h. Afterwards, we used a pre-calibrated EC meter (Jenway, 3540 pH-Conductivity Meter) to measure the electrical conductivity of the water solution. A second measurement was taken after subjecting the samples to a 20-minute heat treatment [60].

$$\text{Electrolyte}\, \text{Leakage} \left(\text{\%}\right)=\left(\frac{\text{EC}1}{\text{EC}2}\right)\times 100$$

Relative water content

The study used a standard procedure [61] to determine the relative water content (RWC) of freshly harvested leaves. Leaf samples were collected, weighed, and immersed in distilled water until full turgidity. After drying, the final dry weight was determined using Ohaus PA 214 Pioneer Series digital balance. The RWC was calculated using a formula.

$$\text{RWC} \left(\text{\%}\right)=\left({\text{FW}}-{\text{DW}}\right)/\left({\text{TW}}-{\text{DW}}\right) \times 100$$

Leaves and root nutrients concentration

Initially, roots and leaves samples were digested by following the standard protocol [62]. For the analysis of total nitrogen in samples, a glass-made manual Kjeldahl distillation apparatus was used [62]. Phosphorus was analyzed using a yellow colour method using ammonium molybdate and ammonium metavanadate. The final absorbance was taken at 420 nm wavelength using a spectrophotometer (UV-1280 UV-VIS Spectrophotometer, Shimadzu). For the assessment of potassium, samples were run on flame-photometer (Microprocessor Flame Photometer (VSI-604)) [36].

Statistical analysis

The data was subjected to conventional statistical analysis [63]. OriginPro software was used to do a two-way ANOVA. Tukey’s test was applied for the comparison of treatment significance at p ≤ 0.05 [64].

Results

Shoot length

Compared to the control, B. faecalis application alone increased shoot length by ~ 23%, ~ 29%, and ~ 40% at 0As, 300As, and 600As stress conditions, respectively. The application of 0.5ECB also impacted shoot length, with increases of ~ 8%, ~ 14%, and ~ 28% at 0As, 300As, and 600As stress conditions, respectively. Notably the applications of 0.5ECB + B. faecalis exhibited the highest percentage increases in shoot length at ~ 37%, ~ 43%, and ~ 55% for the respective 0As, 300As, and 600As stress conditions compared to the control (Fig. 1A).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Influence of B. faecalis and composted biochar sole and combined application on maize shoot length (A), root length (B), leaf length (C), and leaf width (D) under 0 (0As), 300 (300As) and 600 mg As/kg soil (600As). Bars are an average of four replicates ± SE compared using Tukey’s test. Different letters showed significant changes at p ≤ 0.05

Full size image

Root length

Compared to the control, B. faecalis alone significantly increased root length by ~ 38%, ~ 70%, and ~ 71% under 0As, 300As, and 600As stress conditions. Similarly, the application of 0.5ECB alone positively impacted root length, with increases of ~ 22%, ~ 50%, and ~ 58% under the stress conditions. Notably, 0.5ECB + B. faecalis exhibited the highest percentage increase in root length, recording values of ~ 95%, ~ 88%, and ~ 82% for the 0As, 300As, and 600As stress conditions, respectively, compared to the control (Fig. 1B).

Leaf length

Under 0As stress conditions, applying B. faecalis increased leaf length by ~ 25% and 0.5ECB by ~ 10%, while 0.5ECB + B. faecalis showed a remarkable ~ 46% increase compared to the control. In 300As stress, the application of B. faecalis increased leaf length by ~ 31%, 0.5ECB by ~ 17%, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 49%, respectively, over the control. In the 600As stress condition, leaf length increased by ~ 64% with B. faecalis, ~ 50% with 0.5ECB, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis applications, leading to an ~ 88% increase over the control (Fig. 1C).

Leaf width

Compared to the control group under 0As stress, the application of B. faecalis increased leaf width by ~ 27%, 0.5ECB by ~ 15%, and the application of 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 33%. In the 300As stress condition, B. faecalis increased leaf width by ~ 36%, 0.5ECB by ~ 23%, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 45% over the control. Under 600As stress, B. faecalis, 0.5ECB, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis increased leaf width by ~ 62%, ~ 40%, and ~ 72%, respectively, compared to the control (Fig. 1D).

Plant height

In the 0As stress environment, applying B. faecalis and 0.5ECB individually resulted in a ~ 32% and ~ 18% increase in plant height, respectively. Notably, the combined application of 0.5ECB + B. faecalis led to a substantial ~ 56% elevation compared to the control. Similarly, under 300As stress, B. faecalis + 0.5ECB showed a ~ 41% and ~ 27% increase, while the 0.5ECB + B. faecalis application exhibited a significant ~ 68% rise over the control. Under 600As stress, the applications of B. faecalis, 0.5ECB, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis increased plant height by ~ 76%, ~ 52%, and ~ 99%, respectively, compared to the control (Fig. 2A).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Influence of B. faecalis and composted biochar sole and combined application on maize plant height (A), number of leaves (B), and leaf index (C) under 0 (0As), 300 (300As) and 600 mg As/kg soil (600As). Bars are an average of four replicates ± SE compared using Tukey’s test. Different letters showed significant changes at p ≤ 0.05

Full size image

Number of leaves

Under 0As stress, B. faecalis increased the number of leaves by ~ 17%, 0.5ECB by ~ 10%, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 63% compared to the control. In the 300As stress condition, B. faecalis increased the number of leaves by ~ 23%, 0.5ECB by ~ 16%, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 62% over the control. For 600As, B. faecalis increased by ~ 48%, 0.5ECB by ~ 37%, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 60% compared to control (Fig. 2B).

Leaf index

In the 0As stress, B. faecalis increased leaf index by ~ 44% and 0.5ECB by ~ 12%. The application of 0.5ECB + B. faecalis showed a notable ~ 99% elevation over control. For the 300As stress condition, B. faecalis increased leaf index by ~ 41%, 0.5ECB by ~ 6%, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 89% over control. Under 600As stress, B. faecalis rose by ~ 35%, 0.5ECB by ~ 12%, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 80% compared to control (Fig. 2C).

Shoot fresh weight

Under 0As stress, B. faecalis increased shoot fresh weight by ~ 13%, while 0.5ECB showed ~ 4% increase from the control. 0.5ECB + B. faecalis had the highest gain at ~ 50%. In 300As stress, B. faecalis, 0.5ECB, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis increased by ~ 65%, ~ 35%, and ~ 97%, respectively, over control. For 600As stress, B. faecalis, 0.5ECB, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis showed remarkable increases of ~ 93%, ~ 25%, and ~ 87%, respectively, over the control (Fig. 3A).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Influence of B. faecalis and composted biochar sole and combined application on maize shoot fresh weight (A), shoot dry weight (B), root fresh weight (C), and root dry weight (D) under 0 (0As), 300 (300As) and 600 mg As/kg soil (600As). Bars are an average of four replicates ± SE compared using Tukey’s test. Different letters showed significant changes at p ≤ 0.05

Full size image

Shoot dry weight

Compared to the control, B. faecalis significantly increased shoot dry weight by ~ 40%, ~ 55%, and ~ 67% under 0As, 300As, and 600As stress conditions, respectively. Similarly, 0.5ECB alone positively affected shoot dry weight, with percentage increases of ~ 6%, ~ 12%, and ~ 7% for the stress conditions. Notably the application of 0.5ECB + B. faecalis showed the highest percentage increase in shoot dry weight, recording values of ~ 99%, ~ 89%, and ~ 96% for the 0As, 300As, and 600As stress, respectively, over control (Fig. 3B).

Root fresh weight

Under 0As stress, B. faecalis increased root fresh weight by ~ 52% and 0.5ECB by ~ 10%. The application of 0.5ECB + B. faecalis showed a remarkable ~ 99% elevation compared to the control. In the 300As stress condition, B. faecalis increased by ~ 49%, 0.5ECB by ~ 5% and the application of 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 91% over the control. For 600As, B. faecalis rose by ~ 55%, 0.5ECB by ~ 8%, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 97% compared to the control (Fig. 3C).

Root dry weight

In the 0As stress condition, B. faecalis increased root dry weight by ~ 30%, and 0.5ECB by ~ 6%. The application of 0.5ECB + B. faecalis showed a remarkable ~ 71% elevation compared to the control. For 300As, B. faecalis increased by ~ 77%, 0.5ECB by ~ 18%, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 85% over the control. In the 600As stress condition, B. faecalis rose by ~ 78%, 0.5ECB by ~ 21%, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 91% compared to the control (Fig. 3D).

Electrolyte leakage

In the 0As stress condition, B. faecalis reduced electrolyte leakage by ~ 36%, 0.5ECB by ~ 18%, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 66% compared to the control. Under 300As stress, B. faecalis decreased by ~ 37%, 0.5ECB by ~ 18%, and the application of 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 58%. In the 600As stress, B. faecalis, 0.5ECB, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis decreased electrolyte leakage by ~ 36%, ~ 19%, and ~ 56%, respectively, compared to the control group (Fig. 4A).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Influence of B. faecalis and composted biochar sole and combined application on maize electrolyte leakage (A), membrane stability index (B), and relative water content (C) under 0 (0As), 300 (300As) and 600 mg As/kg soil (600As). Bars are an average of four replicates ± SE compared using Tukey’s test. Different letters showed significant changes at p ≤ 0.05

Full size image

Membrane stability index (MSI)

Under 0As stress, B. faecalis increased MSI by ~ 89%, 0.5ECB by ~ 48%, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 132% over control. At 300As stress, B. faecalis increased MSI by ~ 96%, 0.5ECB by ~ 51%, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 140% in contrast to control. In the 600As stress condition, compared to the control, B. faecalis, 0.5ECB, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis increased MSI by ~ 151%, ~ 95%, and ~ 206%, respectively (Fig. 4B).

Relative water content

In the 0As stress condition, B. faecalis increased relative water content by ~ 31%, 0.5ECB by ~ 17%, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 61% compared to the control. Under 300As, B. faecalis increased by ~ 37%, 0.5ECB by ~ 19%, and the application of 0.5ECB + B. faecalis by ~ 64% over control. In the 600As stress, B. faecalis, 0.5ECB, and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis increased relative water content by ~ 71%, ~ 50%, and ~ 94%, respectively, compared to the control group (Fig. 4C).

Antioxidants

Under 0As stress, B. faecalis decreased POD activity by ~ 15%, SOD activity by ~ 24%, and CAT activity by ~ 12% compared to the control. For 0.5ECB, the decrease was ~ 8% for POD activity, ~ 11% for SOD activity, and ~ 5% for CAT activity compared to the control under 0As stress. The combination treatment 0.5ECB + B. faecalis showed a decrease of ~ 23% for POD activity, ~ 34% for SOD activity, and ~ 20% for CAT activity over the control in 0As stress. At 300As stress, B. faecalis decreased POD activity by ~ 20%, SOD activity by ~ 22%, and CAT activity by ~ 13% compared to the control. For 0.5ECB, the decrease was ~ 9% for POD activity, ~ 9% for SOD activity, and ~ 8% for CAT activity from the control in 300As stress. The combination treatment 0.5ECB + B. faecalis showed a decrease of ~ 34% for POD activity, ~ 37% for SOD activity, and ~ 21% for CAT activity over the 300AS stressed control. In the 600As stress, B. faecalis decreased POD activity by ~ 7%, SOD activity by ~ 9%, and CAT activity by ~ 10% over the control. For 0.5ECB under 600As, resulted in ~ 2% decrease in POD activity, ~ 4% in SOD activity, and ~ 4% in CAT activity compared to the control. The combination treatment is 0.5ECB + B. faecalis, showed a decrease of ~ 14% for POD activity, ~ 15% for SOD activity, and ~ 15% for CAT activity from the control (Table 3).

Table 3 Influence of B. faecalis and composted biochar sole and combined application on maize peroxidase (POD), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), ascorbate peroxidase (APX), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and malondialdehyde (MDA) under 0 (0As), 300 (300As) and 600 mg As/kg soil (600As)
Full size table

Under 0As stress, B. faecalis exhibited a decrease in APX activity, H2O2, and MDA levels compared to the control, with decreases of approximately ~ 25%, ~ 33%, and ~ 48%, respectively. Similarly, the application of 0.5ECB decreased levels of APX activity, H2O2, and MDA by approximately ~ 14%, ~ 18%, and ~ 21%, respectively, from the control in 0AS. Moreover, the combined treatment of 0.5ECB and B. faecalis showed the most significant decrease in APX activity, H2O2, and MDA levels, with around ~ 49%, ~ 49%, and ~ 97%, respectively, over the control under 0AS. Under 300AS, B. faecalis exhibited a significant ~ 23%, ~ 25%, and ~ 24% decrease in APX activity, H2O2, and MDA levels, respectively. Likewise, 0.5ECB showed ~ 12%, ~ 11%, and ~ 10% reductions in APX activity, H2O2, and MDA levels, respectively, over the 300AS stressed control. The combined treatment of 0.5ECB and B. faecalis resulted in decreases of approximately ~ 38%, ~ 41%, and ~ 40% in APX activity, H2O2, and MDA levels, respectively, over the 300AS stressed control. In 600As stress, B. faecalis exhibited approximately ~ 11%, ~ 16%, and ~ 17% reductions in APX activity, H2O2, and MDA levels, respectively. Additionally, 0.5ECB demonstrated decreases of around ~ 7%, ~ 8%, and ~ 9% in APX activity, H2O2, and MDA levels, respectively, than the control under 600AS stress. The combined treatment of 0.5ECB and B. faecalis resulted in decreases of approximately ~ 17%, ~ 24%, and ~ 26% in APX activity, H2O2, and MDA levels, respectively, compared to the control (Table 3).

Leaves nutrients concentration

Results showed that B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis caused significant enhancement of ~ 11, ~21 and ~ 35% respectively in leaves N over control at 0As. At 300As, ~ 16, ~25, and ~ 39% significant improvement was observed where B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis were applied respectively compared to control in leaves N. In case of 600As, B. faecalis showed ~ 22%, 0.5ECB resulted in ~ 32% and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis caused ~ 45% significant increase than control in leaves N (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Influence of B. faecalis, composted biochar sole, and combined application on maize leaves N, P, K and As concentration under 0 (0As), 300 (300As) and 600 mg As/kg soil (600As). Bars are an average of four replicates ± SE compared using Tukey’s test. Different letters showed significant changes at p ≤ 0.05

Full size image

For leaves P, B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis showed significant increase of ~ 72, ~30 and ~ 113% respectively than control at 0As. In 300As, ~ 75, ~30, and ~ 115% significant enhancement was observed where B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis were applied respectively over control in leaves P. However, at 600As, B. faecalis showed ~ 75%, 0.5ECB resulted in ~ 31% and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis caused ~ 118% significant improvement from control in leaves P (Fig. 5).

Treatments B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis showed significant increase of ~ 133, ~55 and ~ 252% respectively than control at 0As in leaves K. In 300As, ~ 139, ~57, and ~ 252% significant increase was observed where B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis were applied respectively from control in leaves K. However, at 600As, B. faecalis showed ~ 146%, 0.5ECB resulted in ~ 61% and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis caused ~ 270% significant increment from control in leaves K.

Results showed that B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis caused decline of ~ 8, ~31 and ~ 46% respectively over control at 0As in leaves As. At 300As, ~ 41, ~87, and ~ 94% decline was observed where B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis were applied respectively compared to control in leaves As. However, at 600As, B. faecalis showed ~ 20%, 0.5ECB resulted in ~ 83% and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis caused ~ 86% decrease than control in leaves As (Fig. 5).

Roots nutrients concentration

Applying B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis caused significant improvement of ~ 25, ~55 and ~ 75% respectively in roots N over control at 0As. At 300As, ~ 23, ~46, and ~ 73% significant enhancement was observed where B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis were applied respectively compared to control in roots N. In case of 600As, B. faecalis showed ~ 23%, 0.5ECB resulted in ~ 41% and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis caused ~ 72% significant increments than control in leaves N (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Influence of B. faecalis and composted biochar sole and combined application on maize roots N, P, K and As concentration under 0 (0As), 300 (300As) and 600 mg As/kg soil (600As). Bars are an average of four replicates ± SE compared using Tukey’s test. Different letters showed significant changes at p ≤ 0.05

Full size image

In the case of roots P, B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis showed significant increment of ~ 70, ~34 and ~ 138% respectively than control at 0As. In 300As, ~ 68, ~30, and ~ 124% significant improvement was observed where B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis were applied respectively over control in roots P. However, at 600As, B. faecalis showed ~ 74%, 0.5ECB resulted in ~ 31% and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis caused ~ 122% significant enhancement from control in roots P (Fig. 6).

Treatments B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis showed significant increase of ~ 70, ~34 and ~ 138% respectively than control at 0As in roots K. In 300As, ~ 68, ~30, and ~ 124% significant rise was observed where B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis were applied respectively from control in leaves K. However, at 600As, B. faecalis showed ~ 74%, 0.5ECB resulted in ~ 31% and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis caused ~ 122% significant increment from control in leaves K.

Under 0As, B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis showed significant decrease of ~ 7, ~32 and ~ 40% respectively than control at 0As in roots As. In 300As, ~ 28, ~85, and ~ 92% significant decline was observed where B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis were applied respectively from control in leaves As. However, at 600As, B. faecalis showed ~ 43%, 0.5ECB resulted in ~ 86% and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis caused ~ 91% significant decline from control in leaves As (Fig. 6).

Chlorophyll contents

Applying B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis caused significant improvement of ~ 45, ~26 and ~ 71% respectively in chlorophyll a over control at 0As. At 300As, ~ 59, ~38 and ~ 86% significant enhancement was observed where B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis were applied respectively compared to control in chlorophyll a. In case of 600As, B. faecalis showed ~ 74%, 0.5ECB resulted in ~ 50% and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis caused ~ 99% significant increments than control in chlorophyll a (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Influence of B. faecalis and composted biochar sole and combined application on maize leaves chlorophyll a, b and total contents under 0 (0As), 300 (300As) and 600 mg As/kg soil (600As). Bars are an average of four replicates ± SE compared by using Tukey’s test. Different letters showed significant changes at p ≤ 0.05

Full size image

In the case of chlorophyll b P, B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis showed significant increment of ~ 45, ~21 and ~ 74% respectively than control at 0As. In 300As, ~ 45, ~20 and ~ 75% significant improvement was observed where B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis were applied respectively over control in chlorophyll b. However, at 600As, B. faecalis showed ~ 51%, 0.5ECB resulted in ~ 25% and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis caused ~ 81% significant enhancement from control in chlorophyll b (Fig. 7).

Treatments B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis showed significant increase of ~ 45, ~24 and ~ 72% respectively than control at 0As in total chlorophyll. In 300As, ~ 53, ~31, and ~ 82% significant rise was observed where B. faecalis, 0.5ECB and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis were applied respectively from control in total chlorophyll. However, at 600As, B. faecalis showed ~ 64%, 0.5ECB resulted in ~ 39% and 0.5ECB + B. faecalis caused a ~ 94% significant increment from control in total chlorophyll (Fig. 7).

Discussion

Maize, a nutritious cereal grain, is rich in macronutrients, micronutrients, and essential mineral ions. It also contains antioxidants with therapeutic potential [15]. In addition to examining the potential of ECB and B. faecalis in reducing arsenic toxicity, this study looked at the effect of biochar on maize quality under arsenic stress. According to the results, the combination application of Bacillus faecalis and 0.5ECB significantly enhanced growth metrics and biomass, especially under severe arsenic stress, indicating a synergistic impact to enhance maize growth.

Important growth indices in maize crops, such as plant height, leaf length, leaf width, shoot length, and root length, are significantly impacted by arsenic pollution [65]. This disruption is due to arsenic’s interference with root development, nutrient absorption, and overall plant growth [66]. Similarly, biomass parameters such as shoot fresh weight, shoot dry weight, root fresh weight, and root dry weight experience significant reductions under arsenic-induced stress, as arsenic disrupts photosynthetic processes and diminishes biomass production [67]. This stress also affects physiological attributes like the number of leaves and leaf index, leading to compromised foliar development and altered leaf morphology. Arsenic stress further permeates cellular and physiological levels, evident in increased electrolyte leakage, decreased relative water content, and declining membrane stability index, indicating compromised membrane integrity and susceptibility to oxidative stress [68, 69]. These findings highlight the vulnerability of maize crops to arsenic-induced disturbances, potentially affecting overall plant health and resilience [70, 71].

Our study showed that 0.5ECB (composted biochar) had a significant positive impact on key maize growth factors under arsenic stress, effectively mitigating the harmful effects of arsenic contamination [72,73,74,75,76]. Applying 0.5ECB led to a notable decrease in arsenic absorption by maize roots and leaves. This result is attributed to 0.5ECB’s unique properties and interactions within the maize rhizosphere. Composted biochar is a beneficial soil amendment with diverse effects derived from organic matter through pyrolysis. In our research, the porous structure of 0.5ECB played a crucial role in reducing arsenic bioavailability in the soil, creating an environment that limits arsenic mobility and uptake by plant roots [77]. This finding is consistent with previous studies highlighting biochar’s ability to adsorb heavy metals and restrict their movement in the soil, thus decreasing their accessibility to plants [78, 79]. Composted biochar can significantly influence how plants absorb nutrients. Its porous structure acts like a sponge, holding onto essential elements such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, which would otherwise be lost through leaching [80]. This retention ensures these nutrients remain available to plants over time, promoting healthier growth [81]. Another beneficial aspect is its ability to enhance nutrient uptake remains efficient and safe. However, the specific impacts on phosphorus and potassium uptake can vary based on factors like biochar type, soil conditions, and plant species, necessitating careful consideration in agricultural applications [82].

Introducing 0.5ECB into the soil improved its structure and nutrient retention, creating a healthier soil environment for maize growth, consistent with prior research [83]. The observed enhancements in maize growth parameters under arsenic stress, such as plant height, leaf length, leaf width, shoot length, and root length, are attributed to 0.5ECB’s ability to immobilize arsenic and enhance soil health [84]. These findings highlight 0.5ECB’s potential for promoting plant resilience and mitigating arsenic contamination in agricultural soils. Similarly, the application of Bacillus faecalis (B. faecalis) positively impacted various parameters under arsenic stress in our maize crop study. B. faecalis mitigated the adverse effects of arsenic on plant growth parameters, including plant height, leaf length, leaf width, shoot length, root length, and biomass [85, 86]. This effectiveness may be due to B. faecalis role as a rhizobacterium, influencing nutrient availability, promoting root development, and regulating plant metal uptake, as supported by previous studies [87]. Comparing our findings with existing literature, B. faecalis demonstrates consistent potential in improving plant growth parameters and alleviating metal-induced toxicity in various crops [88, 89]. The combined use of 0.5ECB and B. faecalis effectively boosted maize crop parameters amidst arsenic stress. It notably enhanced plant height, leaf dimensions, and biomass attributes, indicating healthier growth. The intervention also reduced electrolyte leakage, signifying improved membrane stability and stress response. The study suggests that employing 0.5ECB and B. faecalis could be a sustainable strategy for enhancing maize resilience in arsenic-contaminated soils. Further research should delve into its real-world application and long-term effects to comprehensively understand its efficacy and scalability.

Conclusions

In summary, using 0.5ECB combined with Bacillus faecalis (B. faecalis) can potentially enhance maize growth under arsenic-induced stress. This treatment showed potential in regulating antioxidants against arsenic, thus helping to reduce the harmful effects of arsenic stress on maize plants. Further extensive field studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of 0.5ECB combined with Bacillus faecalis as a viable solution for alleviating arsenic-induced stress in maize plants.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  1. Danish S, Hussain GS, Hussain MB, Elgorban AM, Datta R. Unveiling the potential of A. fabrum and γ-aminobutyric acid for mitigation of nickel toxicity in fenugreek. Sci Rep. 2024;14:11042.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Inayat H, Saif H, Danish S, Obaid SA, Ansari MJ. Improving growth of Solanum melongena L. exposed to lead (Pb) stress using gibberellic acid in combination with Agrobacterium fabrum. Plant Stress. 2024;13:100503.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Shahzad K, Danish S, Mubeen S, Dawar K, Fahad S, Hasnain Z, et al. Minimization of heavy metal toxicity in radish (Raphanus sativus) by strigolactone and biochar. Sci Rep. 2024;14:13616.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Sheikh L, Younis U, Shahzad AS, Hareem M, Noor Elahi N, Danish S. Evaluating the effects of cadmium under saline conditions on leafy vegetables by using acidified biochar. Pak J Bot. 2023;55 SI:33–9.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ahmed AS, Parveen A, Azmat R, Siddiqui AJ. Study of biological remediation technologies in relation to the quality and quantity of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) crop along with the restoration of metal contaminated soil. Pak J Bot. 2023;55:5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahmed W, Zaman QU, Mehmood F, Abbasi A, Ashraf K, Fatima K, et al. The potential of commercial composts in reducing heavy metals and metalloids phytoaccumulation in Maize. Pak J Bot. 2023;55:679–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bali AS, Sidhu GPS. Arsenic acquisition, toxicity and tolerance in plants-from physiology to remediation: a review. Chemosphere. 2021;283:131050.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ulhassan Z, Bhat JA, Zhou W, Senan AM, Alam P, Ahmad P. Attenuation mechanisms of arsenic induced toxicity and its accumulation in plants by engineered nanoparticles: a review. Environ Pollut. 2022;302:119038.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nabi A, Naeem M, Aftab T, Khan MMA, Ahmad P. A comprehensive review of adaptations in plants under arsenic toxicity: physiological, metabolic and molecular interventions. Environ Pollut. 2021;290:118029.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hasanuzzaman M, Nowroz F, Raihan MRH, Siddika A, Alam MM, Prasad PVV. Application of biochar and humic acid improves the physiological and biochemical processes of rice (Oryza sativa L.) in conferring plant tolerance to arsenic-induced oxidative stress. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-31119-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ali Q, Ahmad M, Kamran M, Ashraf S, Shabaan M, Babar BH, et al. Synergistic effects of Rhizobacteria and salicylic acid on maize salt-stress tolerance. Plants. 2023;12:2519.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Etesami H, Adl SM. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and their action mechanisms in availability of nutrients to plants. In: Kumar M, Kumar V, Prasad R, editors. Phyto-microbiome in stress regulation. Singapore: Springer; 2020. pp. 147–203.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Chandran H, Meena M, Swapnil P. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria as a green alternative for sustainable agriculture. Sustainability. 2021;13:10986.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bhavya K, Geetha A. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Adv Agric Sci. 2021;61:87.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rahi AA, Hussain S, Hussain B, Baig KS, Tahir MS, Hussain GS, et al. Alleviation of cd stress in maize by compost mixed biochar. J King Saud Univ Sci. 2022;34:102014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zafar-ul-Hye M, Tahzeeb-ul-Hassan M, Abid M, Fahad S, Brtnicky M, Dokulilova T, et al. Potential role of compost mixed biochar with rhizobacteria in mitigating lead toxicity in spinach. Sci Rep. 2020;10:12159.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Zafar-ul-Hye M, Tahzeeb-ul-Hassan M, Wahid A, Danish S, Khan MJ, Fahad S, et al. Compost mixed fruits and vegetable waste biochar with ACC deaminase rhizobacteria can minimize lead stress in mint plants. Sci Rep. 2021;11:6606.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Bhanse P, Kumar M, Singh L, Awasthi MK, Qureshi A. Role of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in boosting the phytoremediation of stressed soils: opportunities, challenges, and prospects. Chemosphere. 2022;303:134954.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hasnain M, Munir N, Abideen Z, Zulfiqar F, Koyro HW, El-Naggar A, et al. Biochar-plant interaction and detoxification strategies under abiotic stresses for achieving agricultural resilience: a critical review. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2023;249:114408.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Darby I, Xu CY, Wallace HM, Joseph S, Pace B, Bai SH. Short-term dynamics of carbon and nitrogen using compost, compost-biochar mixture and organo-mineral biochar. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2016;23:11267–78.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Agegnehu G, Bass AM, Nelson PN, Bird MI. Benefits of biochar, compost and biochar–compost for soil quality, maize yield and greenhouse gas emissions in a tropical agricultural soil. Sci Total Environ. 2016;543:295–306.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Liang JF, Li QW, Gao JQ, Feng JG, Zhang XY, Hao YJ, et al. Biochar-compost addition benefits Phragmites australis growth and soil property in coastal wetlands. Sci Total Environ. 2021;769:145166.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kocsis T, Ringer M, Biró B. Characteristics and applications of biochar in soil–plant systems: a short review of benefits and potential drawbacks. Appl Sci. 2022;12:4051.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lima JZ, da Silva EF, Patinha C, Durães N, Vieira EM, Rodrigues VGS. Sorption of arsenic by composts and biochars derived from the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes: kinetic, isotherm and oral bioaccessibility study. Environ Res. 2022;204:111988.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bolan S, Sharma S, Mukherjee S, Kumar M, Rao CS, Nataraj KC et al. Biochar modulating soil biological health: a review. Sci Total Environ. 2023;:169585.

  26. Kaushal M, Sharma R, Vaidya D, Gupta A, Saini HK, Anand A, et al. Maize: an underexploited golden cereal crop. Cereal Res Commun. 2023;51:3–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lohar D, Srivastava RP, Pathak MK. Beyond Starch-Maize’s lesser-known biochemical marvels. Int J Sci Res Manage (IJSRM). 2023;11:426–32.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang J, Lü F, Shao L, He P. The use of biochar-amended composting to improve the humification and degradation of sewage sludge. Bioresour Technol. 2014;168:252–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Agegnehu G, Srivastava AK, Bird MI. The role of biochar and biochar-compost in improving soil quality and crop performance: a review. Appl Soil Ecol. 2017;119:156–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Page AL, Miller RH, Keeny DR. Soil pH and lime requirement. In: Page AL, editor. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2 Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 9.2.2/Agronomy Monographs. 2nd edition. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc. and Soil Science Society of America, Inc.; 1983. pp. 199–208.

  31. Rhoades JD. Salinity: electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. In: Sparks DL, Page AL, Helmke PA, Loeppert RH, Soltanpour PN, Tabatabai MA, et al. editors. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3, Chemical methods. Madison, WI, USA: Soil Science Society of America; 1996. pp. 417–35.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Nelson DW, Sommers LE, Total, Carbon. Organic Carbon, and Organic Matter. In: Page AL, editor. Methods of Soil Analysis: part 2 Chemical and Microbiological properties. Madison, WI, USA: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America; 1982. pp. 539–79.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Bremner M. Nitrogen-total. In: Sumner DL, Sparks AL, Page PA, Helmke RH, Loeppert NP, Soltanpour AM, et al. editors. Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3. Chemical Methods-SSSA Book Series. Volume 5. Madison, WI, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1996. pp. 1085–121.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kuo S. Phosphorus. In: Sparks DL, Page AL, Helmke PA, Loeppert RH, Soltanpour PN, Tabatabai MA, et al. editors. Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3: Chemical methods. Madison, Wisconsin: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd;: SSSA; 2018. pp. 869–919.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Pratt PF. Potassium. In: Norman AG, editor. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological properties. Madison, WI, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2016. pp. 1022–30.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Donald AH, Hanson D. Determination of potassium and sodium by flame emmision spectrophotometery. In: Kalra Y, editor. Handbook of Reference Methods for Plant Analysis. 1st edition. Washington, D.C.: CRC Press; 1998. pp. 153–5.

  37. Gee GW, Bauder JW. Particle-size Analysis. In: Klute A, editor. Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods. 2nd edition. Madison, WI, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2018. pp. 383–411.

  38. Estefan G, Sommer R, Ryan J. Methods of soil, plant, and water analysis: a manual for the West Asia and North Africa region. 3rd edition. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA); 2013.

  39. Noor NM, Shariff A, Abdullah N. Slow pyrolysis of Cassava wastes for Biochar production and characterization. Iranica J Energy Environ. 2012;3:60–5.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Benton JJr B, Wolf HA, Mills. Plant Analysis Handbook: A Practical Sampling, Preparation, Analysis, and Interpretation Guide - AbeBooks - Jones, Benton J Jr., Wolf B. Mills, Harry A.: 1878148001. 1st edition. USA: Micro-Macro Publishing Inc.,; 1991.

  41. Nadeem F, Ahmad R, Rehmani MIA, Ali A, Ahmad M, Iqbal J. Qualitative and Chemical Analysis of Rice Kernel to Time of Application of Phosphorus in Combination with Zinc under anaerobic conditions. Asian J Agric Biology. 2013;1:67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hall T, Biosciences I, Carlsbad C. BioEdit: an important software for molecular biology. GERF Bull Biosci. 2011;2:60–1.

    Google Scholar 

  43. The National Center for Biotechnology Information-blastn program. http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/. Accessed 23 Jul 2021.

  44. Salehuzzaman S, Li J, Moffatt BA, Glick BR, Shah S, Li J, et al. Isolation and characterization of ACC deaminase genes from two different plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Can J Microbiol. 1998;44:833–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sarwar M, Arshad M, Martens DA, Frankenberger WT. Tryptophan-dependent biosynthesis of auxins in soil. Plant Soil. 1992;147:207–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Kumar P, Dubey RC, Maheshwari DK. Bacillus strains isolated from rhizosphere showed plant growth promoting and antagonistic activity against phytopathogens. Microbiol Res. 2012;167:493–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Schwyn B, Neilands JB. Universal chemical assay for the detection and determination of siderophores. Anal Biochem. 1987;160:47–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Dunne C, Crowley JJ, Moënne-Loccoz Y, Dowling DN, O’Gara F. Biological control of Pythium ultimum by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia W81 is mediated by an extracellular proteolytic activity. Microbiol (N Y). 1997;143:3921–31.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Bakker AW, Schippers B. Microbial cyanide production in the rhizosphere in relation to potato yield reduction and Pseudomonas spp-mediated plant growth-stimulation. Soil Biol Biochem. 1987;19:451–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Macwilliams MP, Liao M. Luria Broth (LB) and Luria Agar (LA) Media and their uses Protocol Resource type: publication date: authors. Am Soc Microbiol. 2006;October 2006:7–9.

  51. Bolan NS, Choppala G, Kunhikrishnan A, Park J, Naidu R. Microbial Transformation of Trace Elements in Soils in Relation to Bioavailability and Remediation. In: Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 1st edition. New York, NY, USA: Springer; 2013. pp. 1–56.

  52. The National Environment Protection Council (NEPC). National Environment Protection Measure (Assessment of Site Contamination). Schedule B1 Guideline Investigation levels Soil and Groundwater. Canberra, Australia,; 2011.

  53. Arnon DI. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiol. 1949;24:1–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Durak I, Yurtarslanl Z, Canbolat O, Akyol Ö. A methodological approach to superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity assay based on inhibition of nitroblue tetrazolium (NBT) reduction. Clin Chim Acta. 1993;214:103–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Cakmak I, Strbac D, Marschner H. Activities of hydrogen peroxide-scavenging enzymes in germinating wheat seeds. J Exp Bot. 1993;44:127–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Aebi H. Catalase in vitro. 1984. pp. 121–6.

  57. Nakano Y, Asada K. Hydrogen peroxide is scavenged by ascorbate-specific peroxidase in spinach chloroplasts. Plant Cell Physiol. 1981;22:867–80.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Hernández JA, Almansa MS. Short-term effects of salt stress on antioxidant systems and leaf water relations of pea leaves. Physiol Plant. 2002;115:251–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Jiang M, Zhang J. Effect of abscisic acid on active oxygen species, antioxidative defence system and oxidative damage in leaves of maize seedlings. Plant Cell Physiol. 2001;42:1265–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Lutts S, Kinet JM, Bouharmont J. NaCl-induced senescence in leaves of rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars differing in salinity resistance. Ann Bot. 1996;78:389–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Weatherley P. Studies in the water relations of the cotton plant. I. The field measurement of water deficits in leaves. New Phytol. 1950;:81–97.

  62. Estefan G, Sommer R, Ryan J. Methods of Soil, Plant, and Water Analysis: A Manual for the West Asia and North Africa Region. 3rd edition. Beirut, Lebanon: ICARDA (International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas); 2013.

  63. Steel RG, Torrie JH, Dickey DA. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 3rd edition. Singapore: McGraw Hill Book International Co.; 1997.

  64. OriginLab Corporation. OriginPro. Northampton. MA, USA.: OriginLab; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Requejo R, Tena M. Proteome analysis of maize roots reveals that oxidative stress is a main contributing factor to plant arsenic toxicity. Phytochemistry. 2005;66:1519–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Chandrakar V, Pandey N, Keshavkant S. Plant responses to arsenic toxicity: morphology and physiology. Mechanisms of arsenic toxicity and tolerance in plants. 2018;:27–48.

  67. Ashraf S, Ahmad SR, Ashraf S, Murtaza A, Ramzan S, Munir B, et al. Definition and chemical prologue of heavy metals: past, present and future scenarios. Heavy metals in the Environment: Management Strategies for Global Pollution. ACS; 2023. pp. 25–48.

  68. Berni R, Luyckx M, Xu X, Legay S, Sergeant K, Hausman JF, et al. Reactive oxygen species and heavy metal stress in plants: impact on the cell wall and secondary metabolism. Environ Exp Bot. 2019;161:98–106.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Riyazuddin R, Nisha N, Ejaz B, Khan MIR, Kumar M, Ramteke PW, et al. A comprehensive review on the heavy metal toxicity and sequestration in plants. Biomolecules. 2021;12:43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Nahar K, Rhaman MS, Parvin K, Bardhan K, Marques DN, García-Caparrós P, et al. Arsenic-induced oxidative stress and antioxidant defense in plants. Stresses. 2022;2:179–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Zulfiqar F, Ashraf M. Antioxidants as modulators of arsenic-induced oxidative stress tolerance in plants: an overview. J Hazard Mater. 2022;427:127891.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Sun Y, Xiong X, He M, Xu Z, Hou D, Zhang W, et al. Roles of biochar-derived dissolved organic matter in soil amendment and environmental remediation: a critical review. Chem Eng J. 2021;424:130387.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Siedt M, Schäffer A, Smith KEC, Nabel M, Roß-Nickoll M, van Dongen JT. Comparing straw, compost, and biochar regarding their suitability as agricultural soil amendments to affect soil structure, nutrient leaching, microbial communities, and the fate of pesticides. Sci Total Environ. 2021;751:141607.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Younis U, Danish S, Datta R, Alahmadi TA, Ansari MJ. Sustainable remediation of chromium-contaminated soils: boosting radish growth with deashed biochar and strigolactone. BMC Plant Biol. 2024;24:115.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Ramzan M, Jamshaid T, Ali L, Dawar K, Saba R, Jamshaid U, et al. Modulation of sunflower growth via regulation of antioxidants, oil content and gas exchange by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and quantum dot biochar under chromium stress. BMC Plant Biol. 2023;23:629.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Dawar K, Mian IA, Khan S, Zaman A, Danish S, Liu K, et al. Alleviation of cadmium toxicity and fortification of zinc in wheat cultivars cultivated in cd contaminated soil. South Afr J Bot. 2023;162:611–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Natasha N, Shahid M, Khalid S, Bibi I, Naeem MA, Niazi NK, et al. Influence of biochar on trace element uptake, toxicity and detoxification in plants and associated health risks: a critical review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2022;52:2803–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Mohamed BA, Ellis N, Kim CS, Bi X. The role of tailored biochar in increasing plant growth, and reducing bioavailability, phytotoxicity, and uptake of heavy metals in contaminated soil. Environ Pollut. 2017;230:329–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Park JH, Choppala GK, Bolan NS, Chung JW, Chuasavathi T. Biochar reduces the bioavailability and phytotoxicity of heavy metals. Plant Soil. 2011;348:439–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Schulz H, Dunst G, Glaser B. Positive effects of composted biochar on plant growth and soil fertility. Agron Sustain Dev. 2013;33:817–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Kammann CI, Schmidt H-P, Messerschmidt N, Linsel S, Steffens D, Müller C, et al. Plant growth improvement mediated by nitrate capture in co-composted biochar. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11080.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Rutherford DW, Wershaw RL, Rostad CE, Kelly CN. Effect of formation conditions on biochars: compositional and structural properties of cellulose, lignin, and pine biochars. Biomass Bioenergy. 2012;46:693–701.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Tayyab M, Islam W, Khalil F, Ziqin P, Caifang Z, Arafat Y et al. Biochar: an efficient way to manage low water availability in plants. Appl Ecol Environ Res. 2018;16.

  84. Lwin CS, Seo B-H, Kim H-U, Owens G, Kim K-R. Application of soil amendments to contaminated soils for heavy metal immobilization and improved soil quality? A critical review. Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2018;64:156–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Sinha D, Datta S, Mishra R, Agarwal P, Kumari T, Adeyemi SB, et al. Negative impacts of arsenic on plants and mitigation strategies. Plants. 2023;12:1815.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Konwar N, Singh KN, Narzary D. Plant–microbe interactions in combating abiotic stresses. Plant stress: challenges and Management in the New Decade. Springer; 2022. pp. 217–34.

  87. Guo J, Muhammad H, Lv X, Wei T, Ren X, Jia H, et al. Prospects and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria to mitigate soil metal contamination: a review. Chemosphere. 2020;246:125823.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Khan MS, Zaidi A, Wani PA, Oves M. Role of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in the remediation of metal contaminated soils. Environ Chem Lett. 2008;7:1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Khan N, Ali S, Shahid MA, Mustafa A, Sayyed RZ, Curá JA. Insights into the interactions among roots, rhizosphere, and rhizobacteria for improving plant growth and tolerance to abiotic stresses: a review. Cells. 2021;10:1551.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 42167014).

Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province (No.20202BAB213016).

Educational Commission of Jiangxi Province (No. GJJ180592).

This project was supported by Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP2024R385), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 42167014).

Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province (No.20202BAB213016).

Educational Commission of Jiangxi Province (No. GJJ180592).

This project was supported by Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP2024R385), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Life Science, Jinggangshan University, Ji’an, 343009, Jiangxi, China

    Yonghui Liao

  2. Department of Botany, Faculty of Chemical and Biological Sciences, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan

    Humaira Ashraf & Musarrat Ramzan

  3. College of Life and Health Science, Anhui Science and Technology University, Fengyang, 233100, Anhui, China

    Shoucheng Huang

  4. Department of Botany, University of Thal Bhakkar, Bhakkar, Punjab, Pakistan

    Rabia Saba

  5. Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences, MNS University of Agriculture, Multan, Punjab, Pakistan

    Muhammad Baqir

  6. Department of Botany and Microbiology, College of Science, King Saud University, PO Box -2455, Riyadh, 11451, Saudi Arabia

    Saleh H. Salmen & Sulaiman Ali Alharbi

  7. Department of Environmental Sciences, Woman University Multan, Multan, Punjab, Pakistan

    Misbah Hareem

Authors
  1. Yonghui Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Humaira Ashraf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shoucheng Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Musarrat Ramzan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rabia Saba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Muhammad Baqir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Saleh H. Salmen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sulaiman Ali Alharbi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Misbah Hareem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization; M.R.; H.A.; Y.L.; S.H.; Conducted experiment; H.A.; Formal analysis; H.A.; M.H.; R.S.; Methodology; M.R.; M.B.; Writing—original draft; M.B.; S.A.A.; S.H.S.; M.H.; Y.L.; S.H.; Writing—review & editing; M.B.; S.A.A.; S.H.S.; M.H.; Y.L.; S.H.;. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Musarrat Ramzan or Misbah Hareem.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

We all declare that manuscript reporting studies do not involve any human participants, human data, or human tissue. So, it is not applicable.

Experimental research and field studies on plants (either cultivated or wild), including the collection of plant material, must comply with relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation

We confirmed that all methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines/regulations/ legislation.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liao, Y., Ashraf, H., Huang, S. et al. Unveiling the efficacy of Bacillus faecalis and composted biochar in alleviating arsenic toxicity in maize. BMC Plant Biol 24, 660 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-024-05372-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-024-05372-2

Keywords

BMC Plant Biology

ISSN: 1471-2229

Contact us