Life Sciences Leaflets FREE DOWNLOAD BIOFERTILIZERS -MEANS OF INCREASING SUSTAINABLE CROP PRODUCTION...

Life Sciences Leaflets FREE DOWNLOAD ISSN 2277-4297(Print) 0976–1098(Online)

http://lifesciencesleaflets.ning.com/ PEER-REVIEWED Page | 101

BIOFERTILIZERS - MEANS OF INCREASING

SUSTAINABLE CROP PRODUCTION AND ARE

ECOFRIENDLY

M. HUSSAIN DAR1, N. SINGH1, GHULAM H. DAR 2,

S. SHERAZ MAHDI 3, S.M.RAZVI4 AND R.GROACH1

1DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY,

KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA,

HARYANA-INDIA, 136 119.

2DIVISION OF PLANT PATHOLOGY,

3DIVISION OF AGRONOMY,

DIVISION OF PLANT BREEDING AND GENETICS,

SHER-E-KASHMIR UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL

SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY OF KASHMIR (SKUAST-K)

SHALIMAR, SRINAGAR, J & K- INDIA,191 121.

Corresponding author’s e-mail: [email protected] &

[email protected]

ABSTRACT:

The most important constraint limiting crop yield in developing nations

worldwide, and especially among resource-poor farmers, is soil infertility.

Therefore, maintaining soil quality can reduce the problems of land

degradation, decreasing soil fertility and rapidly declining production levels

that occur in large parts of the world needing the basic principles of good

farming practice. Minerals, organic components and microorganisms are three

major solid components of the soil. They profoundly affect the physical,

chemical, and biological properties and processes of terrestrial systems.

Biofertilizer are the products containing cell of different types of beneficial

microorganisms. Thus, biofertilizers can be important components of

integrated nutrients management. Organisms that are commonly used as

biofertilizers component are nitrogen fixers (N-fixer), solubilizer (K -

solubilizer) and phosphorus solubilizer (P- solubilizer), or with the

combination of molds or fungi. These potential biological fertilizers would

Received on:

13th Dec 2013

Revised on:

29th Dec 2013

Accepted on:

24th Dec 2013

Published on:

1st March 2014

Volume No.

Online & Print

49 (2014)

Page No.

101 to 115

Life Sciences Leaflets is an international

open access print &

e journal, peer

reviewed, worldwide abstract listed,

published every month

with ISSN, RNI Free- membership,

downloads and access.

http://lifesciencesleaflets.ning.com/

mailto:[email protected]%20&%[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]%20&%[email protected]

http://uifactor.org/SearchJournal.aspx?q=0976%20-%201098

http://uifactor.org/SearchJournal.aspx?q=0976%20-%201098

http://naasindia.org/documents/journal2013.docx

http://naasindia.org/documents/journal2013.docx



play key role in productivity and sustainability of soil and also protect the environment as eco-friendly and

cost effective inputs for the farmershe.Use of bio-fertilizers can improve productivity per area in a

relatively short time, consume smaller amounts of energy and promote antagonism and biological control

of phytopathogenic organisms.Biofertilizers have fabulous tendency for synthetic fertilizers without

compromising on crop yield. The Government of India has been trying to promote an improved practice

involving use of biofertilizers. The government aims not only to encourage their use in agriculture but

also to promote private initiative and commercial viability of production.

KEYWORDS: Biofertilizers, Growth , Yield, Productivity, Sustainability.

INTRODUCTION:

For optimum plant growth, nutrients must be available in sufficient and balanced quantities (Chen, 2006).

The most important constraint limiting crop yield in developing nations worldwide, and especially among

resource-poor farmers, is soil infertility. Unless the fertility is restored in these areas, farmers will gain

little benefit from the use of improved varieties and more productive cultural practices. Metabolic

activities of the microbes such as bacteria (Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria – PGPR), fungal

organisms (mycorrhiza, cyanobacteria) and soil fauna (nematodes, worms, protozoans etc.) promote soil

health and crop productivity. Integrated nutrient management has become an accepted strategy to bring

about improvement in soil fertility and protecting the environment. Promote soil fertility and crop

productivity.

Biofertilizers are important components of integrated nutrients management. These potential biological

fertilizers would play key role in productivity and sustainability of soil and also protect the environment as

eco-friendly and cost effective inputs for the farmers. They are cost effective, eco-friendly and renewable

source of plant nutrients to supplement chemical fertilizers in sustainable agricultural system.

Biofertilizers more commonly known as microbial inoculants are artificially multiplied cultures of certain

soil organisms that can improve soil fertility.

Biofertilizers have an ability to mobilize nutritionally important elements from non-usable to usable form.

These microorganisms require organic matter for their growth and activity in soil and provide valuable

nutrients to the plant. Biofertilizers are ready to use live formulates of beneficial microorganisms which

on application to seed, root or soil mobilize the availability of nutrients by their biological activity in

particular and help in building up the micro flora and in turn the soil health in general (Rajendra et

al.,1998). Biofertilizers have the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen and mobilize phosphorus in soil from

unavailable from the plant usable form. Biofertilizers include microorganisms and their metabolites that

are capable of enhancing soil fertility, crop growth and yield. These include both indigenous microbes and

microbial inoculants that are microorganisms that replace fertilizers or increase a crop's fertilizer use

efficiency (Panwar et al., 2000). Beneficial microorganisms in biofertilizers accelerate and




improve plant growth and protect plants from pests and diseases (El-yazeid et al., 2007). The role of soil

microorganisms in sustainable development of agriculture has been reviewed (Lee and Pankhurst, 1992;

Wani et al., 1995).

Most Common Microorganisms Used as Biofertilizers and their Functions

Organisms that are commonly used as biofertilizers component are nitrogen fixers (N-fixer), potassium

solubilizer (K-solubilizer) and phosphorus solubilizer (P- solubilizer), or with the combination of molds or

fungi. Most of the bacteria included in biofertilizer have close relationship with plant roots. Commonly

used microorganisms as biofertilizers in sustainable agriculture are mentioned below.

Rhizobia

Rhizobia are symbiotic bacteria that fix atmospheric N2 gas in plant root nodules and have a mutually

helpful relationship with their host plants. The plant roots supply essential minerals and newly synthesized

substances to the bacteria. Because of their N-fixing ability, legumes are less reliant on inorganic N

fertilizer than many other non-legume crops such as cereals and pasture grasses. Biological nitrogen

fixation is one way of converting elemental nitrogen into plant usable form (Gothwal et al., 2007).

Nitrogen-fixing bacteria (NFB) that function transform inert atmospheric N2 to organic compounds

(Bakulin et al., 2007). Rhizobium inoculation is a well-known agronomic practice to ensure adequate N

supply for legumes in place of N fertilizer. In root nodules the O2 level is regulated by special hemoglobin

called leg-hemoglobin. This globin protein is encoded by plant genes but the heme cofactor is made by the

symbiotic bacteria. This is only produced when the 1plant is infected with Rhizobium. The plant root cells

convert sugar to organic acids which they supply to the bacteroids. In exchange, the plant will receive

amino-acids rather than free ammonia. It is reported that rhizobium can fix 50-300 kg N/ha.

Phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB)

Under acidic or calcareous soil conditions, large amounts of phosphorus are fixed in the soil but are

unavailable to the plants. Phosphobacterins, mainly bacteria and fungi, can make insoluble phosphorus

available to the plant. During phosphorus solubilization, some organic acids are produced which decrease

the pH and acid phosphatases convert the organic phosphorus into inorganic form (Khan et al., 2009).

Organic acids (gluconic and ketogluconic acids) are secreted by the soil phosphorus solubilizing bacteria

dissolve the soil phosphorus along with decreasing the pH of the soil (Goldstein, 1995; Deubel et al.,

2000). Decrease in the pH and the production of organic acid have combine effect in the solublization of

phospate (Fankem et al., 2006). Plant growth promoting substances are produced by phosphorus bio-

fertilizers which enhance the mobility of fix phosphorus by solublization process and also increase the

availability of iron and zinc (Kucey et al., 1989). Due to PSB, 10-25% efficiency of phosphorus fertilizer

has been observed throughout the world (Isherword, 1998). It is reported that PSB culture increased yield

up to 200-500 kg/ha and thus 30 to 50 kg of superphosphate can be saved. Therefore, the use of PSB in

agricultural practice would not only offset the high cost of manufacturing phosphate fertilizers but would




also mobilize insoluble in the fertilizers and soils to which they are applied (Chang and Yang, 2009;

Banerjee et al., 2010).

Vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza (VAM)

More than 400 million years ago, plants evolved a symbiotic relationship with mycorhaizal fungi that is

still very critical for plant health today. Mycorrhizal symbioses are attractive systems in agriculture,

floriculture, horticulture, arboriculture and forest management to enhance crop and wood production in the

sense of sustainable agriculture and restoring soil fertility.The efficient VAM fungal strains are the

potential candidates as biofertilizers for their use in crop production.Mycorrhizae are mutually beneficial

(symbiotic) relationships between fungi and plant roots. VAM fungi infect and spread inside the root.

They possess special structures known as vesicles and arbuscules. The plant roots transmit substances

(some supplied by exudation) to the fungi, and the fungi aid in transmitting nutrients and water to the plant

roots. The fungal hyphae may extend the root lengths 100-fold. The hyphae reach into additional and

wetter soil areas and help plants absorb many nutrients, particularly the less available mineral nutrients

such as phosphorus, zinc, molybdenum and copper. It has also been suggested that VAM stimulate plant

growth by physiological effects or by reducing the severity of diseases caused by the soil pathogens

(Gupta, 2004).

Azotobacter

Belongs to family Azotobacteriaceae, aerobic, free living, and heterotrophic in nature. Azotobacters are

present in neutral or alkaline soils and A. chroococcum is the most commonly occurring species in arable

soils. A. vinelandii, A. beijerinckii, A. insignis and A. macrocytogenes are other reported species.

Azotobacter is capable of converting nitrogen to ammonia, which in turn is taken up by the plants (Kamil,

et al, 2008). The number of Azotobacter rarely exceeds of 104 to 105 g-1 of soil due to lack of organic

matter and presence of antagonistic microorganisms in soil. The bacterium produces anti-fungal

antibiotics which inhibits the growth of several pathogenic fungi in the root region thereby preventing

seedling mortality to a certain extent (Subba Rao, 2001). The isolated culture of Azotobacter fixes about

10 mg nitrogen g-1 of carbon source under in vitro conditions. Azotobacter also to known to synthesize

biologically active growth promoting substances such as vitamins of B group, indole acetic acid (IAA)

and gibberellins.

Azospirillum

Belongs to family Spirilaceae, heterotrophic and associative in nature. In addition to their nitrogen fixing

ability of about 20-40 kg/ha, they also produce growth regulating substances. Azospirillum, a bacterial

biofertilizer is highly beneficial for cereals, millets, sugarcane, cotten sunflower and other crops.

Azospirillum assimilates atmospheric nitrogen. It also secretes phyto-hormones in the plant root regions,

which intern enhances the root growth. Although there are many species under this genus like,

A.amazonense, A.halopraeferens, A.brasilense, but, worldwide distribution and benefits of inoculation




have been proved mainly with the A.lipoferum and A.brasilense. The Azospirillum form associative

symbiosis with many plants particularly with those having the C4-dicarboxyliac path way of

photosynthesis (Hatch and Slack pathway), because they grow and fix nitrogen on salts of organic acids

such as malic, aspartic acid (Arun, 2007). Thus it is mainly recommended for maize, sugarcane, sorghum,

pearl millet etc. The Azotobacter colonizing the roots not only remains on the root surface but also a

sizable proportion of them penetrates into the root tissues and lives in harmony with the plants. They do

not, however, produce any visible nodules or out growth on root tissue. Fulchieri and Frioni (1994)

observed that maize inoculated with Azospirillum had enhanced dry weight of seed by 59 percent and also

the yield which was similar to 60 kg urea N ha-1. Increased yield in pear miller obtained by inoculation of

Azospirillum was due to production of indole acetic acid (IAA), gibberellins, any cytokine like substances

by the bacterium and their subsequent effect on the plant (Kumar et al., 2010). The results of the various

experiments conducted throughout India have clearly shown that Azospirillum can be used as a potential

biofertilizer in both expensive and intensive agriculture. In developing countries like India, the use of

Azospirillum as a biofertilizer would not only to the nitrogen supplementation to crops but also help in

improving the fertility of soil in the long run.

MECHANISM OF BIOFERTILIZERS

The mechanism involved in the plant growth promotion by biological inoculants was given by (Okon,

1985).

(i) Increased availability and uptake of nutrients

Through biological nitrogen fixation, solubilization of insoluble phosphates and mobilization of plant

nutrients in more quantities are made available for crop plants by the root associated organisms. Increased

nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium content of inoculated plants at different stages of crop growth have

been found resulting in significant increase in grain yield. During phosphorus solubilization, some organic

acids are produced which decrease the pH and acid phosphatases convert the organic phosphorus into

inorganic form (Khan et al., 2009). Decrease in the pH and the production of organic acid have combine

effect in the solublization of phospate (Fankem et al., 2006). General sketch of P solubilisation in soil is

shown in (Figure 1) and also uptake of phosphorous from the soil is mediated by mycorrhizal fungi in

addition to plant roots (Figure 2). VAM in combination with PSB can improve the uptake of phosphorous

and increase the crop production (Young et al., 1990). It is also reported that the AM- fungi also increases

the uptake of K, and concentration of K has been found more in mycorrhizal than non-mycorrhizal plants

(Bressan et al., 2001). Apart from this, the AM-fungi also increases the uptake and efficiency of

micronutrients like Zn, Cu, Fe etc. by secreting the enzymes, organic acids which makes fixed macro and

micronutrients mobile and as such are available for the plant. Findings of Mohammadi et al. (2011)

showed that application of biofertilizers had significant effects on nutrient uptake of chickpea (Table-1).




ii) Production of plant growth promoting substances

Many root colonizing bacteria including the nitrogen fixing Azospirillum and phosphorus solubilizing

Pseudomonas spp. are known to produce growth hormones which often leads to increased root and shoot

growth. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria have a tendency to fix atmospheric nitrogen and the

production of certain metabolites including auxin, cytokinin, gibberellins, hydrogen cyanide (HCN),

phytohormones and production of certain unstable substances. Also produce certain mineral dissolving

compounds (solublization of phosphorus), rivalry and produce internal resistance (Glick et al., 1994; Joo

et al., 2004; Ryu et al., 2003). Azotobacter has a great tendency to produce substances like Indole acetic

acid (IAA), Gibberellins, vitamin B complex and growth hormones having great potential increasing the

growth and development and ultimately the yield of crops. Plant growth promoting substances produced

by phosphorus bio-fertilizers which enhance the mobility of fix phosphorus by solublization process and

also increase the availability of iron and zinc (Kucey et al., 1989).

iii) Suppression of growth of pathogenic microorganisms

There is reduction in the inoculum density of plant pathogens due to the introduction of certain inoculants.

Productions of antibiotics and bacteriocins by the introduced organisms have been suggested as possible

mechanisms by which pathogen are inhibited. AM fungi have the potential to reduce damage caused by

soil-borne pathogenic fungi, nematodes, and bacteria. Metaanalysis showed that AM fungi generally

decreased the effects of fungal pathogens. A variety of mechanisms have been proposed to explain the

protective role of mycorrhizal fungi. It is also reported that increased production and activity of phenolic

and phytoalexien compounds with due to AM inoculation considerably increases the defense mechanism

there by imparts the resistance to plants.

Role of biofertilizers in different crops are discussed under following heads:

1. Effect of biofertilizer on growth and yield

It is well-known that inoculation of cereals with plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) resulted in

increased plant/crop growth and yield and acts as biofertilizer and bioenhancer for different non-legumes

(Andrews et al., 2003; Mia et al., 2009). However, there is general agreement that these growth responses

were not due to N2 fixation by the bacterium, but were primarily related to the bacterial production of

phytohormone, which caused changes in root morphology and physiology that resulted in increased

nutrient and water uptake from the soil (James, 2000; Mantelin and Touraine, 2004; Mia et al., 2009).

Singh and Singh (2004), reported that VAM significantly increase growth of plants compared to non

mycorrhizal control and was also effective in increasing nutrient uptake by the plants. VAM influenced

growth attributing character and yield attributing component. About 50% saving of phosphorus was

achieved through the use of VAM. Rhizobium spp. are plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and some are

endophytes which can produce phyto-hormones, siderophores, HCN, solubilize sparingly soluble organic

and inorganic phosphates and can colo-nize in the roots of many non-legumes (Antoun et al., 1998;




Sessitsch et al., 2002). Radhakrishnan (1996) reported that inoculation of Azospirillum and phosphor-

bacteria resulted in higher root biomass and more bolls in cottn.

Results of Asad and Vafa (2011) showed higher grain yield and higher biomass in inoculated treatments

as compared to uninoculated(Table 2). Nitrogen fixing and phosphorus solubilizing bacteria have

synergistic effects on the growth and development of crops. Collective seed treatment with nitrogen fixing

and phosphorus dissolving bacteria are more effective instead of single application. Wheat seed treatment

with bacillus sp. enhanced the root growth (Gouzou et al., 1993). Wheat seed treatment with bacillus sp.

enhanced the root growth and also improved the plant development (Ryder et al., 1999). Olivera et al.

(2002) declared that the effect of combined inoculation of bean by phosphate solubilizing bacteria and

Bradyrhizobium japonicum bacteria were positive on dry weight.

Yield attributes viz. number of pods plant-1, number of seeds pod-1, seed yield and 1000-seed weight were

significantly influenced by biofertilizers application. Seed treatment with plant growth promoting

rhizobacteria has been shown optimistic increase in wheat yield due to high nutrient assimilation capacity

of roots. Wheat seed inoculation with Azotobacter increase all yield parameters and the final yield of the

crop both separately and mutually with phosphorus solubilizing bacteria (Abd El-Gawad and El-Sayed,

2009) and also Wheat seed treatment with Pseudomonas putida and Baccilus lentus increased the

germination of seed, growth of seedlings and increase the wheat yield (Abbasdokht and Gholami, 2010).

A significant positive effect on grain yield was obtained due to combined inoculation of Azospirillum and

Pseudomonas striata in Zea mays (Prabakaran and Ravi, 1991). Grain yields of the different maize

genotypes treated with Azospirillum spp. Varied between 1700 and 7300 kg ha-1( Salmone and

Dobereiner, 2004). Crops inoculated with Azotobacter and Azospirilla reviewed by Wani (1990) indicated

that Pearl millet and Sorghum, which are grown as dryland crops showed 11-12% increased yields due to

inoculations. Shaharoona et al. (2007) also reported that phosphate-solubilizing bacteria would increase

wheat yield. In addition, Jat and Ahlawat (2006) by using of phosphate solubilizing bacteria and one strain

of rhizobial bacteria on the pea plant, stated that biological yield, grain yield and grain protein level

significantly increased compared with control treatment.

Zhang et al. (2002) reported that B. japonicum bacteria increased number of pods per plant, number of

seeds per plant, hundred seed weight and development of plant leaves in two soybean cultivars. Kazemi et

al. (2005) also stated that soybean seed inoculation by rhizobial bacteria significantly increased the

number of pods per plant, number of seeds per plant, thousand grain weights and finally the yield of

soybean. It has been found from various experimental results that inoculation of Rhizobium in different

cereal grains increased yield to some extent. It was observed that rhizobial inoculation enhanced

stomatal conductance, thereby increasing the photosynthesis rates by 12% in rice varieties where 16%

grain yield was recorded.




Similarly, Mia et al. (2000) found increased photosynthetic rate and yield in Bananas inoculated with

PGPR. Mikhailouskaya and Tcherhysh (2005) reported on effect of inoculation of K mobilizing bacteria

on several eroded soils which are comparable with yields on moderately eroded soil without bacterial

inoculation, resulted increased wheat yield upto 1.04 t/ha.

2. Effect of biofertilizers on soil character

Bio-fertilizers containing beneficial bacteria and fungi improve soil chemical and biological

characteristics, phosphate solutions and agricultural production (El-Habbasha et al., 2007; Yosefi et al.,

2011). Metabolic activities of the microbes such as bacteria (Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria –

PGPR), fungal organisms (mycorrhiza, cyanobacteria) and soil fauna (nematodes, worms, protozoans etc.)

promote soil health and crop productivity.The plants inoculated with Azotobacter and Azospirillum derive

positive benefit in terms of enhancement in uptake of N03-, NH4+, H2P04-, K+ and Fe2+ increased nitrate

reductase activity in plants and production of antifacterial and antifungal compounds (Wani, 1990). The

role of mycorrhizal associations in enhancing nutrient uptake will mainly be relevant in lower input

agroecosystems.The mycorrhizal role in maintaining soil structure is important in all ecosystems (Ryan

and Graham, 2002). Formation and maintenance of soil structure will be influenced by soil properties, root

architecture and management practices.

Bio-fertilizers check harmful soil pathogens (Fukui et al., 1994) and also enhance the availability of

essential nutrients for crop plants (Belimov et al., 1995). The use of machines and fertilizers are

considered to be responsible for soil degradation. Soil aggregation is one component of soil structure.

Mycorrhizal fungi contribute to soil structure by (1) growth of external hyphae into the soil to create a

skeletal structure that holds soil particles together; (2) creation by external hyphae of conditions that are

conducive for the formation of micro-aggregates; (3) enmeshment of micro aggregates by external hyphae

and roots to form macro aggregates; and (4) directly tapping carbon resources of the plant to the soils

(Miller and Jastrow, 2000). This direct access will influence the formation of soil aggregates, because soil

carbon is crucial to form organic materials necessary to cement soil particles. Various results of various

findings showed that the quantities of beneficial microorganisms in the soil increased considerably due to

the use of Azotobacter mycorrhiza and phosphorins in banana.

Marschner and Baumann (2003) used a denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) technique to

show that the presence of mycorrhizae in maize changed the structure of the soil bacterial populations. In

salt meadow cord grass (Spartina patens), AMF colonization was negatively related with the proliferation

of bacteria of a subdivision of the Proteobacteria, while it was positively related with populations of the

gamma subdivision of the Proteobacteria (Burke et al. 2003). Mycorrhizal impacts on soil aggregate

stability can also influence soil physical conditions, and in turn, the soil microbial community. Andrade et

al. (1998) have shown that the root and fungal components of mycorrhizae enhance water stable aggregate

stability individually and additively, and suggested that this affects microorganism number indirectly by




providing a favourable and protective habitat through the creation of habitable pore space in the water

stable aggregates.

BIO-FERTILIZERS SUBSTITUTION OF SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS

Environmental pollution will caused by frequent application of mineral fertilizers. By reducing high rates

of mineral fertilization by using bio-fertilizer, we can reduce the cost of production and safe the

environment through pollution (Ahmed et al 2005, El-Gazzar, 2006, Hussein, 2007). Negative

environmental impacts of chemical fertilizers and their rising costs, enhances the application of PGPB

which is valuable in the sustainable agricultural practices. Application of bio-fertilizer encouraged plant

growth and productivity (El-Metwaly, 1998, Abdalla, 2001, Adam and Riskn, 2002). Presence of different

strain groups such as nitrogen fixer, nutrient mobilization microorganisms which help in increasing the

availability of minerals and their forms in composted materials and increase levels of extractable of macro

or micronutrients has increased significance effect of bio-fertilizers in different crop plants (El- Karamany

et al, 2000). Mostly by volatilization or by leaching in drainage of water N-fertilizers are rapidly lost by

different ways; sixty percent or more of the applied fertilizers are mainly lost (Hayes, 1972). The problem

does not only involve the losing amounts of nitrogen which causes reasonable economic losses, but is also

involves under ground water contamination and the other dangerous environmental pollution hazards.

CONCLUSION:

Bio-fertilizers being essential components of organic farming play vital role in maintaining long term soil

fertility and sustainability by fixing atmospheric di-nitrogen (N=N), mobilizing fixed macro and micro

nutrients or convert insoluble P in the soil into forms available to plants, there by increases their efficiency

and availability. These bio-fertilizers are recyclable, eco-friendly, less expensive with additional

advantages as compare to that of conventional fertilizers. Currently there is a gap of ten million tons of

plant nutrients between removal of crops and supply through chemical fertilizers. In context of both the

cost and environmental impact of chemical fertilizers, excessive reliance on the chemical fertilizers is not

viable strategy in long run because of the cost, both in domestic resources and foreign exchange, involved

in setting up of fertilizer plants and sustaining the production. In this context, organic manures (bio-

fertilizers) would be the viable option for farmers to increase productivity per unit area.

REFERENCES:

Abbasdokht, H. and Gholami, A. 2010. The effect of seed inoculation (Pseudomonas putida + Bacillus

lentus) and different levels of fertilizers on yield and yield components of wheat (Triticum aestivum

L.) cultivars. World Aced. Sci. Eng. Technol. 68: 979-983.

Abd-El-Gawad, A. M. and El-Sayed, Z. T. 2009. Evaluation the response of wheat to bio-organic

agriculture under Siwa Oasis conditions. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 49: 34-43.




Abdalla, A. M. et. al; 2001. The productivity of pepper plants as influenced by some bio-fertilizer

treatments under plastic house conditions. Bull. Fac. Agric. Cairo Univ. 52: 625-639

Adam, S.M. et. al; 2002. Effect of the interaction between the mineral and bio-fertilizer on the

productivity of cantaloupe (Cucumis melo L.) under the newly reclaimed soils conditions. Egypt. J.

Hort. 29: 301-315.

Ahmed, H. et. al; 2005. Effect of salinity, phosphorein, micronutrients and GA3 on growth, seed yield

and oil composition of flax plant. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ. 30: 2015-2038.

Andrade, G. et. al; 1998. Plant Soil, 202 89–96.

Andrews, M. et. al; 2003. Symbiosis,. 35:209–229.

Antoun, H. et. al; 1998. Plant Soil, 204 57-68.

Arun, K. S. 2007. Bio-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture. Sixth edition, Agribios publishers, Jodhpur,

India, 196-197.

Asad, R. and Vafa, T. 2011. Nutrient uptake and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) inoculated with

plant growthpromoting rhizobacteria. Aust. J. crop sci. 5: 44-48.

Bakulin, M. K. et. al; 2007. Biological fixation of nitrogen and growth of bacteria of the genus

Azotobacter in liquid media in the presence of Perfluoro carbons. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 4: 399-

402.

Belimov, A. A. et. al; 1995. Interaction between barley and mixed cultures of nitrogen fixing and

phosphate-solubilizing bacteria. Plant Soil, 173 29-37.

Bressan, W. et. al; 2001. Fungos micorrizicos e fosforo, no crescimento, nos teores de nutrients e na

produc¸ao do sorgo e soja consorciados. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 36: 315–323.

Burke, D. J. et. al; 2003. Interactions between the salt marsh grass Spartina patens, arbuscular

mycorrhizal fungi and sediment bacteria during the growing season. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35 501–

511.

Chang, C. H. and Yang, S. S. 2009. Thermo-tolerant phosphate-solubilizing microbes for multi-functional

biofertilizer preparation. Biores .Technol. 100: 1648-1658.

Chen, Y. P. et. al; 2006. Phosphate solubilizing bacteria from subtropical soil and their tri-calcium

phosphate solubilizing abilities. Appl. Soil Ecol. 34: 33-41.

Deubel, A. et. al; 2000. Transformation of organic rhizodeposits by rhizoplane bacteria and its influence

on the availability of tertiary calcium phosphate. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 163: 387-392.

El-Gazzar, A. A. M. 2006. Effect of mineral and biophosphorus fertilization and zinc levels on flax yield

and quality. Alex. J. Agric. Res. 51: 35-45.

El-Habbasha, S. F. et. al; 2007. Integration effect between phosphorus levels and biofertilizers on quality

and quantity yield of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) in newly cultivated sandy soils. Res .J. Agric. Biol.

Sci. 3: 966-971.




El-Karmany, M. 2001. Effect of organic manure and slow-release nfertilizer on the productivity of wheat

in sandy soil. Acta Agronom.Hung.49: 379-385.

El-Metwaly, I. M. 1998. Effect of herbicides and biofertilization on growth and yield of wheat under

different nitrogen fertilization levels. Ph.D. Thesis, Mansoura Univ. Fac. Agric. Egypt.

El-Yazeid, A. A. et. al; 2007. Enhancing growth, productivity and quality of squash plants using

phosphate dissolving microorganisms (bio phosphor) combined with boron foliar spray. Res. J.

Agric. Biol. Sci. 3: 274-286.

Fankem, H. et. al; 2006. Occurrence and functioning of phosphate solubilizing microorganisms from oil

palm tree rhizosphere in Cameroon. Afr.J. Biotech. 5: 2450-2460.

Fukui, R. et. al; 1994. Growth patterns and metabolic activity of Pseudomonas in sugar beet

spermospheres: Relationship to pericarp colonization by Pythiumultimum. Phytopathol. 84: 1331-

1338.

Fulchieri, M. and Frioni, L. 1994. Azospirillum inoculation on maize (Zea mays): Effect of yield in a field

experiment in Central Argentina. Soil Biol. Biochem. 26: 921-924.

Glick, B. R. et. al; 1994. 1-Aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid deaminase mutants of the plant growth-

promoting rhizobacterium Pseudomonas putida GR12-2 do not stimulate canola root elongation.

Canad. J. Microbiol. 40: 911-915.

Goldstein, A. H. 1995. Recent progress in understanding the molecular genetics and biochemistry of

calcium phosphate solubilization by Gram-negative bacteria. Biol. Agri Hort. 12 185-193.

Gothwal, R. K. et. al; 2007. Screening of nitrogen fixers from rhizospheric bacterial isolates associated

with important desert plants. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 6: 101-109.

Gouzou, L. et. al; 1993. Effect of inoculation with Bacillus polymyxaon soil aggregation in the wheat

rhizosphere: preliminary examination. Geoderma, 56: 479-491.

Gupta, A. K. 2004. The complete technology book on biofertilizers and organic farming. National Institute

of Industrial Research Press. India.

Hayes, J. T. 1971. Symposium on controlled release nitrogen fertilizer. J. Agric. Food Chem. 19 797.

Hussein, M. M. 2007. Response of some flax genotypes to bio and nitrogen fertilization. Zagazig J. Agric.

Res. 34: 815-844.

Isherword, K. F. 1998. Fertilizer use and environment. In: Plant Nutrition Management for Sustainable

Agricultural Growth. Ahmed N and.Hamid A (eds.), Proceeding Symposium. NFDC, Islamabad,

Pakistan. pp 57-76.

James, E. K. (2000). Nitrogen fixation in endophytic and associative symbiosis. Field Crops Res. 65: 197-

209.

Jat, R. S. and Ahlawat, I. P. S. 2006. Direct and residual effect of vermicompost, biofertilizers and

phosphorus on soil nutrient dynamics and productivity of chickpea-fodder maize sequence. J Sustain

Agr. 28 41-54.




Joo, G. J. et. al; 2004. Growth promotion of red pepper plug seedlings and the production of gibberellins

by Bacillus cereus, Bacillus macroides and Bacillus pumilus. Biotechnol. Lett. 26: 487-491.

Kamil, P. et. al; 2008. Plant Growth Promotional Effect of Azotobacter chroococcum, Piriformospora

indica and Vermicompost on Rice Plant. Nepal J.Sci.Technol. pp 85-90.

Kazemi, S. et. al; 2005. Effects of planting date and seed inoculation by the bacteria on the yield and

yield components of two soybean varieties. Agri. Sci. Nat. Resour. 12 20-26.

Khan, M. S. et. al; 2007. Role of phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms in sustainable agriculture - A

review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 27: 29-43.

Khan, A. et. al; 2009. Phosphorus solubilizing bacteria: occurrence, mechanisms and their role in crop

production. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 1: 48-58.

Kucey, R. M. N. et. al; 1989. Microbial mediated increases in plant available phosphorus. Adv. Agron. 42:

199-228.

Kumar, V. et. al; 2010. Efficacy of fly-ash based biofertilizers vs perfected chemical fertilizers in wheat

(Triticum aestivum). Int. J. Sci. Technol. 2: 31-35.

Lee, K. E. and Pankhurst, C. E. 1992. Soil organisms and sustainable productivity. Aust.J. Soil Res. 30:

855- 92.

Mantelin, J. and Touraine, B. 2004. Plant growth-promoting bacteria and nitrate availability: impacts on

root development and nitrate uptake. J. Exp. Bot. 55: 27-34.

Marschner, P. and Baumann, K. 2003. Changes in bacterial community structure induced by

mycorrhizal colonisation in splitroot maize. Plant Soil 251: 279–289.

Mia, M. A. B. et. al; 2000. Growth and physiological attributes of hydroponically-grown bananas

inoculated with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Transac. Malaysian Soc. Plant Physiol. 9:

324-327.

Mikhailouskaya, N. and Tcherhysh, A. 2005. K-mobilizing bacteria and their effect on wheat yield.

Latvian J.Agron.8: 154-157.

Miller, R. M. and Jastrow, J. D. 2000. Mycorrhizal fungiinfluence soil structure. In: Kapulnik, Y.,

Douds, D.D. (eds.), Arbuscular Mycorrhizas: Physiology and Function. Kluwer Academic,

Dordrecht, pp 3–18.

Mohammadi, K. et. al; 2011. Introducing the sustainable soil fertility system for chickpea (Cicer

arietinum L.). Af.J. Biotechnol. 10: 6011-6020.

Okon, Y. 1985. Tlbtech. 3: 223-228.

Olivera, M. et. al; 2002. Effect of phosphorus on nodulation and N fixation by bean (Phaseolus vulgaris).

Proceedings of the 15th International Meeting on Microbial Phosphate Solubilization. Salamanca

University, 16-19 July, Salamanca, Spain.

Panwar, J. D. S. et. al; 2000. Responce of Azospirillum and Bacillus on growth and yield of wheat under

field conditions. Indian J. Plant Physiol. 5: 108-110.




Prabakaran, J. and Ravi, K. B. 1991. Interaction effect of A. Brasilense and Pseudomonas sp. A phosphate

solubilizer on the growth of Zea mays. In: Microbiology Abstracts, XXXI Annual Conference of the

Association of Microbiologists of India, TNAU, Coimbatore, Jan, 23-26. pp109.

Radhakrishnan, K. C. 1996. Role of biofertilizers in cotton productivity. National Seminar Biofertilizer

Production Problem and Constraints, TNAU, Coimbatore, Jan 24-25. pp 17.

Rajendra, P. et. al; 1998. Interrelationship of fertilizers use and other agricultural inputs for higher crop

yields. Fertilizers News, 43 35-40.

Ryan, M. H. and Graham, J. H. 2002. Is there a role for arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in production

agriculture. Plant Soil 244: 263–271.

Ryder, M. H. et. al; 1999. Use of strains of Bacillus isolated in China to suppress take-all and

Rhizoctonia root and promote seedling growth of glasshouse-grown wheat in Australian soils. Soil

Biol. Biochem. 31: 19-29.

Ryu, C. et. al; 2003. Bacteria volatiles promote growth in Arabidopsis. Proceeding of the National

Academy of Sciences of the U.S. A. 100: 4927-4932.

Salomone, G. and Dobereiner, J. 2004. Maize genotype effects on the response to Azospirillum

inculation. Biol. Fert. soils, 21: 193-196.

Sessitsch, A. et. al; 2002. Advances in Rhizobium research. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 21: 323-387.

Shaharoona, B. et. al; 2007. Effectiveness of various Pseudomonas Sp and Burkholderia improving

growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivam L.). J.Microbiol. Biotechnol. 17: 1300-1307.

Singh, A. and Singh, S. P. 2004. Indian J. Hart. 61: 109-113.

Subba, N. S. 2001. An appraisal of biofertilizers in India. The biotechnology of biofertilizers, (ed.)

S.Kannaiyan, Narosa Pub. House, New Delhi (in press).

Wani, S. P. 1990. Inoculation with associative nitrogenfixing bacteria: Role in cereal grain production

improvement. Indian J. Microbiol. 30: 363-393.

Wani, S. P. et. al; 1995. Effect of legume–based cropping systems on nitroge mineralization potential of

Vertisol. Plant Soil. 175: 265-274.

Yosefi, K. 2011. Effect of bio-phosphate and chemical phosphorus fertilizer accompanied with

micronutrient foliar application on growth, yield and yield components of maize (Single Cross 704).

Aust. J. Crop Sci. 5: 175-180.

Young, C.C. et. al; 1990. Effect of Rhizobium, vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza and phosphate

solubilizing bacteria on yield and mineral phosphorus uptake of crops in subtropical-tropical. In:

Transactions of the 14th International Congress of Soil Science. Kyoto, Japan, ICSS. III. pp 55-60.

Zhang, H. et. al; 2002. Low temperature-tolerant Bradyrhizobium Japonicum strains allowing improved

soybean yield in short-season. Agron. J. 94: 870-875.




Table 1: Effect of Soil fertility systems on accumulation in chickpea seed

Mean values in each Colum with the same superscript (s) do not differ significantly by DMRT (P=0.05).

Table 2: Inoculation effects of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on grain yield, biomass dry

weight and nitrogen and phosphorus uptake by grains

Treatments Grain Yield

(Kg ha-1) Biomass

(Kg ha-1) N (Yield)

(Kg ha-1) P (Yield)

(Kg ha-1)

1.Uninoculated 543.9 i 1082.3 f 14.49 e 2.088 d

2. Azos. 826.8 b-f 1609.3 b-d 27.85 ab 3.252 a-c

3. Azot. 797.1 b-g 1549.4 b-d 28.60 a 3.168 a-c

4. M. 772.5 d-h 1514.4 b-e 27.05 a-d 2.890 bc

5. P. 739.3 gh 1445.8 de 22.17 cd 2.747 c

6. Azos. + Azot. 877.2 ab 1695.8 a-c 27.05 a-c 3.459 ab

7. Azos. + M. 751.8 e-h 1493.1 c-e 24.53 a-d 2.869 bc

8. Azos + P. 781.1 c-g 1509.6 b-e 20.32 d 3.132 a-c

9. Azot. + M. 835.3 a-e 1629.4 b-d 27.53 a-c 3.142 ac

10. Azot. + P. 697.5 h 1427.8 de 21.97 cd 2.963 bc

11. M. + P. 689.9 h 1340.8 e 22.96 b-d 3.017 a-c

12. Azos. + Azot. + M. 818.6 b-g 1621.8 b-d 25.40 a-d 3.147 a-c

13. Azos. + Azot. + P. 910.6 a 1845.8 a 29.78 a 3.606 a

14. Azos. + M. + P. 864.0 a-c 1705.6 ab 26.60 a-c 3.277 a-c

15. Azot. + M. + P. 847.5 a-d 1665.3 abc 25.28 a-d 3.151 a-c

16. Azos. + Azot. + M + P. 743.3 f-h 1442.8 de 22.10 cd 3.016 a-c

Selected group comparisions

Comparision 1 ** **

Comparision 2 ** **

Comparision 3 NS NS

Comparision 4 NS NS

Azos: Azospirillium, Azot: Azotobacter, M: Mesorhizobium, P: Pseudomonas, Values followed by the

same letters in a coulum are not significantly different at P < 0. 05 according to Duncan’s multiple test.

Comparision 2: Azotobacter-containing versus non Azotobacter- containing treatments. Comparision 3:

Mesorhizobium- containing versus non Mesorhizobium- containing treatments.Comparision 4:

Pseudomonas- containing versus non Pseudomonas- containing treatments.

** Significant at the 0.01 probability level, NS: not significant.

Treatment

Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Calcium Magnesium Manganese Iron

(mg/100g)

Biofertilizerrs

PSB(B1) 2269b 273.5b 1201.1b 184.3a 4.3a 2.63a 4.42a

Trichoderma

(B2)

2295b 266.2c 1176.3c 183.7ab 4.2b 2.56b 4.35c

PSB + fungi 2315a 279.8a 1232.1a 183.2b 4.3a 2.62a 4.47a

Control(B4) 2167c 264.9c 119.8b 184.4a 4.2b 2.57b 4.36c




Mineralisation/ Solubilization

mobilisation

Fig 1. Soil Phosphorous mobilization and immobilization by bacteria

MYCO-RRHIZOSPHERE

SOIL P

Fig. 2: Solubilization of Phosphates in the Mycorrhizosphere and the mycorrhizal

Phosphorous uptake

Soil P

Organic and

inorganic

Bioavailable

Phosphorous

Azospirillum

Acetobacter

Azotobacter

Enterobacter

Bacillus

Pseudomonas

Organic

carbon

AMF

Hyphae

Root

uptake

Organic

acids

ADDED P

pD NATIV

E

P

P

H2PO

4 PS

B


Life Sciences Leaflets FREE DOWNLOAD BIOFERTILIZERS -MEANS OF INCREASING SUSTAINABLE CROP PRODUCTION...

Documents

Transcript of Life Sciences Leaflets FREE DOWNLOAD BIOFERTILIZERS -MEANS OF INCREASING SUSTAINABLE CROP PRODUCTION...