Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 265, Issue 1–2, pp 123–129 | Cite as

Sugar beet and barley yields in relation to inoculation with N2-fixing and phosphate solubilizing bacteria

  • Fikrettin Şahin
  • Ramazan ÇakmakçiEmail author
  • Faik Kantar
Article

Abstract

Recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in bioorganic fertilizers as part of sustainable agricultural practices to alleviate drawbacks of intensive farming practices. N2-fixing and P-solubilizing bacteria are important in plant nutrition increasing N and P uptake by the plants, and playing a significant role as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in the biofertilization of crops. A study was conducted in order to investigate the effects of two N2-fixing (OSU-140 and OSU-142) and a strain of P-solubilizing bacteria (M-13) in single, dual and three strains combinations on sugar beet and barley yields under field conditions in 2001 and 2002. The treatments included: (1) Control (no inoculation and fertilizer), (2) Bacillus OSU-140, (3) Bacillus OSU-142, (4) Bacillus M-13, (5) OSU-140 + OSU-142, (6) OSU-140 + M-13, (7) OSU-142 + M-13, (8) OSU-140 + OSU-142 + M-13, (9) N, (10) NP. N and NP plots were fertilized with 120 kg N ha−1 and 120 kg N ha−1 + 90 kg P ha- for sugar beet and 80 kg N ha−1 and 80 kg N ha−1 + 60 kg P ha−1 for barley. The experiments were conducted in a randomized block design with five replicates. All inoculations and fertilizer applications significantly increased leaf, root and sugar yield of sugar beet and grain and biomass yields of barley over the control. Single inoculations with N2-fixing bacteria increased sugar beet root and barley yields by 5.6–11.0% depending on the species while P-solubilizing bacteria alone gave yield increases by 5.5–7.5% compared to control. Dual inoculation and mixture of three bacteria gave increases by 7.7–12.7% over control as compared with 20.7–25.9% yield increases by NP application. Mixture of all three strains, dual inoculation of N2-fixing OSU-142 and P-solubilizing M-13, and/or dual inoculation N2-fixing bacteria significantly increased root and sugar yields of sugar beet, compared with single inoculations with OSU-140 or M-13. Dual inoculation of N2-fixing Bacillus OSU-140 and OSU-142, and/or mixed inoculations with three bacteria significantly increased grain yield of barley compared with single inoculations of OSU-142 and M-13. In contrast with other combinations, dual inoculation of N2-fixing OSU-140 and P-solubilizing M-13 did not always significantly increase leaf, root and sugar yield of sugar beet, grain and biomass yield of barley compared to single applications both with N2-fixing bacteria. The beneficial effects of the bacteria on plant growth varied significantly depending on environmental conditions, bacterial strains, and plant and soil conditions.

Key words

nitrogen fixation phosphate solubilization dual inoculation biofertilizers Bacillus ssp. sugar beet barley 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alagawadi A R and Gaur A C 1992 Inoculation of Azospirillum brasilense and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria on yield of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) in dry land. Trop. Agric. 69: 347–350.Google Scholar
  2. Amer G A and Utkheda R S 2000 Development of formulation of biologica agents for management of root rot of lettuce and cucumber. Can. J. Microbiol. 46: 809–816.Google Scholar
  3. Bashan Y 1998 Inoculations of plant growth-promoting bacteria for use in agriculture. Biotehnol. Adv. 16: 729–770.Google Scholar
  4. Belimov A A, Kojemiakov P A and Chuvarliyeva C V 1995 Interaction between barley and mixed cultures of nitrogen fixing and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria. Plant Soil 17:, 29–37.Google Scholar
  5. Biswas J C, Ladha J K and Dazzo F B 2000 Rhizobia inoculation improves nutrient uptake and growth of lowland rice. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64: 1644–1650.Google Scholar
  6. Chiarini L, Bevivino A, Tabacchioni S and Dalmastri C 1998 Inoculation of Burkholderia cepacia, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Enterobacter sp. on Sorghum bicolor: root colonization and plant growth promotion of dual strain inocula. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30: 81–87.Google Scholar
  7. Çakmakçi R, Oral E and Kantar F 1998 Root yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in relation to plant population. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 180: 45–52.Google Scholar
  8. Çakmakçi R, Kantar F and Algur Ö F 1999 Sugar beet and barley yield in relation to Bacillus polymxa and Bacillus megaterium var. Phosphaticum inoculation. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 162: 437–442.Google Scholar
  9. Çakmakçi R, Kantar F and Şahin F 2001 Effect of N2-fixing bacterial inoculations on yield of sugar beet and barley. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 164: 527–531.Google Scholar
  10. Döbereiner J 1997 Biological nitrogen fixation in the tropics: Social and economic contributions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 29: 771–774.Google Scholar
  11. Döbereiner J, Reis V M, Paula M A and Olivares F 1993 Endophytic diazotrophs in sugarcane, cereals and tuber plants. In Palacios R, Mora J and Newton W. E (Eds) New Horizons in Nitrogen Fixation, pp. 671–676. Kluwer Academic, Boston.Google Scholar
  12. Eşitken A, Karlidağ H, Ercisli S and Şahin F 2002 Effect of foliar application of Bacillus subtilisOsu-142 on the yield”, growth and control of shot-hole disease (Corneum blight) of apricot. Gartenbauwissenschaft. 67: 139–142.Google Scholar
  13. Forbes B A, Sahm D F and Weissfeld A S 1998 Bailey and Scott’s Diagnostic Microbiology (11th ed). 1068 pp. Mosby Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Fukui R, Schroth M N, Hendson M and Hancock J G and Firestone M K 1994 Growth patterns and metabolic activity of Pseudomonas in sugar beet spermospheres: Relationship to pericarp colonization by Pythium ultimum. Phytopathol. 84: 1331–1338.Google Scholar
  15. Gomez K A and Gomez A A 1984 Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Gyaneshwar P, Naresh Kumar G, Parekh L J and Poole P S 2002 Role soil microorganisms in improving P nutrition of plant. Plant Soil 245: 83–93.Google Scholar
  17. Han S O and New P B 1998 Variation in nitrogen fixing ability among natural isolates of Azospirillum. Microb. Ecol. 36: 193–201.Google Scholar
  18. Hecht-Buchholz C 1998 The apoplast - habitat of endophytic dinitrogen - fixing bacteria and their significance for the nitrogen nutrition of nonlegumious plants. Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenk. 161: 509–520.Google Scholar
  19. Hubbel D H and Kidder G 1998 Biological Nitrogen Fixation. Soil and Water Sci. Dep., Florida Coop. Ext. Serv., University of Florida.Google Scholar
  20. Kucey R M N, Janzen H H and Legett M E 1989 Microbially mediated increases in plant available phosphorus. Adv. Agron. 42: 199–228.Google Scholar
  21. Kumar V and Narula N 1999 Solubilization of inorganic phosphates and growth emergence of wheat as affected by Azotobacter chrococcum. Biol. Fert. Soils 28: 301–305.Google Scholar
  22. Maslaris N, Christodoulou P and Zountsas G 1997 Quantitative effect of root/leaf growth rate on root yield and quality parameters in sugar beet. Zuckerind. 122: 208–211.Google Scholar
  23. Mehta S and Nautiyal C S 2001 An efficient method for qualitative screening of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria. Curr. Microbiol. 43: 51–56.Google Scholar
  24. Nautiyal C S, Bhadauria S, Kumar P, Lal H, Mondal R and Verma D 2000 Stress induced phosphate solubilization in bacteria isolated from alkaline soils. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 182: 291–296.Google Scholar
  25. Oliveira A L M, Urquiaga S, Döbereiner J and Baldani J I 2002 The effect of inoculating endophytic N2-fixing bacteria on micropropagated sugarcane plants. Plant Soil 242: 205–215.Google Scholar
  26. Olsen S R, Cole C V, Watanable F S and Dean L A 1954 Estimation of available phosphorus in soil By extraction with sodium bicarbonate. U.S. Dept. of Agr. Circ. 939. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  27. Öztürk A, Cağlar O and Şahin F 2003 Yield response of wheat and barley to inoculation of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria at various levels of nitrogen fertilization. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 166: 1–5.Google Scholar
  28. Pal S S 1999 Interaction of an acid tolerant strain of phosphate solubilizing bacteria with a few acid tolerant crops. Plant Soil 213: 221–230.Google Scholar
  29. Reinefeld E, Emmerich A, Baumgarten G, Winner C und Beiβ U 1974 Zur Voraussage des Melassezuckers aus Rübenanalysen. Zucker 27: 2–15.Google Scholar
  30. Rojas A, Holguin G, Glick B R and Bashan Y 2001 Synergism between Phyllobacterium sp. (N2-fixer) and Bacillus licheniformis (P-solubilizer), both from semiarid mangrove rhizosphere. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 35: 181–187.Google Scholar
  31. Schilling G, Gransee A, Deubel A, Ležovič G and Ruppel S 1998 Phosphorus availability, root exudates, and microbial activity in the rhizosphere. Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenk. 161: 465–478.Google Scholar
  32. Şahin F And Miller SA 1999 Management of bacterial spot of tomato and pepper using a plant resistance activator in combination with microbial biocontrol agents. Phytopatho. 89: 19.Google Scholar
  33. Tiwari V N, Lehri L K and Pathak A N 1989 Effect of inoculating crops with phospho-microbes. Exp. Agric. 25: 47–50.Google Scholar
  34. Urquiaga S, Cruz K H S and Boddey R M 1992 Contribution of nitrogen fixation to sugar cane: nitrogen-15 and nitrogen-balance estimates. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 56: 105–114.Google Scholar
  35. Vassilev N, Vassileva M, Fenice M and Federici F 2001 Immobilized cell technology applied in solubilization of insoluble inorganic (rock) phosphates and plant acquisition. Bioresource Technol. 79: 263–271.Google Scholar
  36. Whitelaw M A 2000 Growth promotion of plants inoculated with phosphate-solubilizing fungi. Adv. Agron. 69: 99–151.Google Scholar
  37. Whitelaw M A, Hardenand T A and Bender G L 1997 Plant growth promotion of wheat inoculated with Penicillium radicum sp. nov. Australian J. Soil Res. 35: 291–300.Google Scholar
  38. Yoneyama T, Muraoka T, Kim T H, Dacanay E V and Nakanishi Y 1997 The natural15N abundance of sugarcane and neighboring plants in Brazil, the Philippines and Miyako (Japan). Plant Soil 189: 239–244.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fikrettin Şahin
    • 1
  • Ramazan Çakmakçi
    • 2
    Email author
  • Faik Kantar
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant ProtectionAtatürk UniversityErzurumTurkey
  2. 2.Erzurum and/or Technical Vocational School IspirAtatürk University Biotechnology Application and Research CenterErzurumTurkey
  3. 3.Faculty of Agriculture, Department of AgronomyAtatürk UniversityErzurumTurkey

Personalised recommendations