## 3 Results and Discussion
### Pot Essays
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatment** & **Height (\%)** & **Complete Spike (\%)** & **Base Spike (\%)** & **Total Biomass (\%)** & **Root Biomass (\%)** \\ \hline T1 & 142.96 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) & 154.22 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) & 174.83 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) & 215.93 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) & 282.36 \({}^{\text{a,b,*}}\) \\ T2 & 138.64 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 153.35 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) & 164.90 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) & 214.83 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) & 334.71 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) \\ T3 & 137.82 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 138.77 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 161.58 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 224.31 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) & 246.14 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ T4 & 140.22 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) & 143.44 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 156.95 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 188.92 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 228.25 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ T5 & 141.54 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) & 146.06 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) & 155.62 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 186.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 236.97 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ T6 & 139.29 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 141.98 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 162.91 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) & 212.47 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 262.35 \({}^{\text{a,b,*}}\) \\ T7 & 125.50 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 141.39 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 159.60 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 181.16 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 232.22 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ C0 & 100.00 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 100.00 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 100.00 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 100.00 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 100.00 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\text{a}}\) corresponding to the first three outstanding positions in Tukey–Kramer and Dunnett comparisons of means with a \(p<0.05\). \({}^{\text{a}}\), \({}^{\text{b}}\), and \({}^{\text{c}}\) letters indicate similarities between treatments.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Percentage of PGP and Tukey–Kramer and Dunnett comparisons between treatments in _T. aestivum_. Figure 3: Effects in plant height with the biofilned inoculant per treatments in _T. aestivum_. (C0, and C2 letters refer to control experiments; letters from T1 to T7 refer to experimental treat-ments; a, and b letters indicate similarities between experimental treatments). All treatments showed evidence of plant growth promotion, considering the improvement in percentage, and the outstanding results were more evident in T1 and T2 (Figure 4). A 15-30% increase in height and 148% increase in total biomass with _T. aestivum_ compared to the control using 10\({}^{8}\) spores of _Streptomyces_ species has been reported [66; 71]. This study observed a mean increase in the height between 140% and 200% in total biomass, with a root biomass increase of over 300% using _Streptomyces flavelous_ (ARI_A20-5). While using _Streptomyces aureus_ T3 (ARI_A30-32), an increase over 220% was observed for total biomass; this strain also improved the following parameters: height and complete spike when combined with _S. griseorubens_ T1 (ARI_A20-3) in T5 treatment, compared to the control. Both strains, _S. flavelous_ and _S. aureus_, showed significant activity as plant growth promoters even when these strains had only been used mostly for their antimicrobial and antifungal potential against human pathogens [69; 72; 73; 74]. In addition, _S. aureus_ has been used in soil bioremediation [75; 76]; this strain was found to be an efficient siderophore producer in this study. [PERSON] et al. (2014) improved the treatment of one _Streptomyces_ species by using 10\({}^{6}\) cells/biofilm per pot. Highlighting results were reported even from using it as a consortium with another _Streptomyces_ sp., as described by [PERSON] et al. (2021). They used _S. canvas_ in a consortium applied in pomegranate fields. Moreover, _S. griseorubens_ (ARI_A20-3) significantly improved root growth compared to the results reported by [PERSON] et al. (2021) using the same planktonic microorganism in wheat. The results in this work are better than those reported by [PERSON] et al. (2014) for treatments with one _Streptomyces_ species, using 10\({}^{6}\) cells/biofilm per pot [67; 68; 77].