Stress Tolerance and Symbiotic and Phylogenic Features of Root Nodule Bacteria Associated with Medicago Species in Different Bioclimatic Regions of Tunisia

Vol. 26, No. 1, 36–45, 2011

 

p. 40 right column

Incorrect

St.3-13, Pl.2-1 and Pl.3-6 categorized as A. tumefaciens displayed acetylene reduction activities which were not significantly different in comparison with the remaining isolates classified into E. meliloti or E. medicae, except for St.3-1 as shown in Fig. 6-B.

Correct

St.3-13, Pl.2-1 and Pl.3-6 categorized as A. tumefaciens displayed acetylene reduction activities as shown in Fig. 6-B.

 

p. 43

Incorrect

Fig. 6 A and B with the small letters, a, ab, b mistakenly placed on the bar plots and indicating statistical analysis

Correct

Fig. 6 A and B without the small letters, as below

Fig. 6.

Root nodule numbers and Acetylene reduction assay of Medicago plants inoculated with the 32 isolates. *1: uninoculated control plants, *2: isolates with high temperature tolerance, *3: isolates with high salinity tolerance, *4: isolates categorized as A. tumefaciens, *5: isolates assigned to E. medicae, *6: isolate categorized as E. meliloti; however, the sequence of nodA was identical to that of E. medicae.

p. 44 left column

Incorrect

This result shows that the root nodule forming ability of the symbiotic Agrobacterium is significantly lower than that of the E. medicae isolate.

Correct

This result shows that the root nodule forming ability of the symbiotic Agrobacterium is lower than that of the E. medicae isolate.

 

p. 44 left column

Incorrect

Similarly, regarding ethylene production by acetylene reduction assays, those of the two Agrobacterium isolates were clearly lower than that of E. medicae isolates shown in Fig. 6-B.

Correct

Similarly, regarding ethylene production by acetylene reduction assays, those of the two Agrobacterium isolates were lower than that of E. medicae isolates shown in Fig. 6-B.