## 3 Results
### Field Experiment
The relative abundance of _Adhaeribacter_, _Bacillus_, _Lysobacter_, _Marmoricola_, _MND1_, _Nitrospira_, _Pseudarthrobacter_, and _RB41_ was higher in SIB soil samples than in the control. Instead, _Chryseobacterium_, _Flavobacterium_, _Gemmatomonas_, _Hydrogenophaga_, _Massilia_, _Pontibacter_, _Sphingobacteriaium_, _Sphingomonas_, and _Stenotrophomonas_ were more numerous in the control. Unknown ASVs (amplicon sequence variants) included Acidobacteria, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Treatment**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**F Test**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**LSD**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-6}  & & **PS** & **Control** & & & \\ \hline pH & 7.67 a & 7.65 a & 7.52 b & * & 0.09 \\ Total N (g Kg\({}^{-1}\)) & 2.05 b & 1.95 c & 2.15 a & ** & 0.09 \\ TOC (g Kg\({}^{-1}\)) & 16.67 b & 14.33 c & 18.67 a & ** & 1.15 \\ OM (g Kg\({}^{-1}\)) & 28.67 b & 24.65 c & 32.11 a & ** & 1.99 \\ EC (\(\mu\)s cm\({}^{-1}\)) & 0.44 a & 0.38 b & 0.33 c & ** & 0.03 \\ Na (mg Kg\({}^{-1}\)) & 31.50 a & 30.50 a & 17.25 b & ** & 3.07 \\ Ca (mg Kg\({}^{-1}\)) & 3055.50 a & 2997.75 b & 3082.25 a & ** & 31.61 \\ Mg (mg Kg\({}^{-1}\)) & 150.15 a & 127.25 b & 145.25 a & ** & 7.91 \\ K (mg Kg\({}^{-1}\)) & 421.00 a & 284.00 c & 311.50 b & ** & 18.46 \\ Available P (mg P\({}_{2}\)P\({}_{2}\)P\({}_{5}\) Kg\({}^{-1}\)) & 300.25 b & 155.00 c & 350.75 a & ** & 9.42 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} PS, pre-sowing; SIB, seed inoculated with bacteria. *\(p<0.05\); *\(p<0.01\).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Soil chemical analysis results recorded in the development stage (DS) 49 during the growing season (May-October). The table shows the effects of bacterial application on soil chemical parameters. Means followed by different letters are significantly different according to [PERSON]’s LSD test. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Treatment**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**F Test**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**LSD**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & & **Control** & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{CLPP} & AWCD & 1.35 & 1.47 & * & 6.03 \\  & H & 3.28 & 3.31 & * & 1.91 \\ \cline{1-1}  & R & 29 & 30 & n.s. & - \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{NGS} & H & 6.07 & 6.11 & - & - \\  & Simpson 1-D & 0.9968 & 0.9971 & - & - \\ \cline{1-1}  & Chao-1 & 571.6 & 587 & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Indexes calculated on community level physiological profile results recorded in development stage (DS) 49 during the growing season (May-October). The table shows the effects of bacterial application on AWCD (average well color development), H (Shannon), and R (Richness) indexes. Means followed by different letters are significantly different according to [PERSON]’s LSD test. Plant growth and development parameters recorded in the open field experiment are shown in Table 4. Root and aerial part length were significantly affected by seed bacterial treatment only in DS 49 (5.4% and 7%, respectively). However, seed inoculation with our PGPB consortium significantly improved total plant growth, as well as dry weights of roots and shoots in all developmental stages. For these parameters, SIB treatment shows a significant difference from the control plants in all stages. Pigments' amount was also influenced by the inoculum at late maturation. For both chlorophyll and carotenoids contents, SIB treatment exhibited the best values than the control in 45 and 49 DS, while there were no significant differences in 41 DS.