3 Biotech

, 8:141 | Cite as

Effect of nanozeolite and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on maize

  • Priyanka Khati
  • Parul
  • Pankaj Bhatt
  • Nisha
  • Rajeew Kumar
  • Anita Sharma
Original Article


Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria are key to soil and plant health maintenance. In the present study, two PGPR strains which were identified as Bacillus spp. (accession number KX650178 and KX650179) with nanozeolite (50 ppm) were applied to the seeds in different combinations and tested on growth profile of maize crop. Various growth related parameters, including plant height, leaf area, number of leaves chlorophyll and total protein were positively increased up to twofold by the nanocompound treatment. GC–MS results reveal increase in total phenolic and acid ester compounds after the treatment of nanozeolite and PGPR, which are responsible for stress tolerance mechanism. Soil physicochemical parameters (organic carbon, phosphorous, potassium, ammoniacal nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen) were assessed qualitatively and a shift towards higher amount was observed. Various biochemical parameters of soil health like dehydrogenase, fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis and alkaline phosphatase activity were significantly enhanced up to threefold with the application of different treatments. The results, for the first time, demonstrate successful use of nanozeolite in enhancing growth of Zea mays, under controlled conditions and present a viable alternative to GM crop for ensuring food security.


PGPR Rhizosphere Bioinoculant Nanozeolite Zea mays 



Absolute control


Sterilized soil


Fluorescein diacetate


Oxidizable organic carbon


Available phosphorous


Nitrate nitrogen


Unsterilized soil


Ammoniacal nitrogen




Available potassium



This research was supported by University Grant Commission (UGC) India and Department of Microbiology, College of Basic Science and Humanity, GBPUA&T Pantnagar.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

13205_2018_1142_MOESM1_ESM.doc (22 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 21 kb)


  1. Aminiyan MM, Sinegani AAS, Sheklabadi M (2015) Aggregation stability and organic carbon fraction in a soil amended with some plant residues, nanozeolite, and natural zeolite. Int J Recycl Organic Waste Agric 4(1):11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnon DI (1949) Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenol oxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiol 24:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett LT, Mele PM, Annett S, Kasel S (2010) Examining links between soil management, soil health, and public benefits in agricultural landscapes: an Australian perspective. Agr Ecosyst Environ 139:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantification of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein—dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns RG (1978) Enzyme activity in soil: some theoretical and practical considerations. In: Bums RG (ed) Soil enzymes. Academic, London, pp 295–340Google Scholar
  6. Casida L, Klein D, Santoro T (1964) Soil dehydrogenase activity. Soil Sci 98:371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cantarella H (2007) Nitrogen. In: Novais RF, Alvarez VH, Barros NF, Fontes RLF, Cantarutti RB, Neves JCL (eds) Soil fertility. Brazilian Soil Science Society, Vic¸osa, MG, pp 375–470 (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  8. Deshpande SB, Fehrenbacher JB, Beavers AN (1971) Mollisols of Tarai region of Uttar Pradesh, Northern India, Morphology and mineralogy. Geoderma 6(3):179–193Google Scholar
  9. Dick WA, Cheng L, Wang P (2000) Soil acid and alkaline phosphatase activity as pH adjustment indicators. Soil Biol Biochem 32(13):1915–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doran JW, Jones AJ, Arshad MA, Gilley JE (1999) Determinants of soil quality and health. In: Pankhurst CE, Doube BM, Gupta VVSR (eds) Biological indicators of soil health. CAB International, OxonGoogle Scholar
  11. Eivazi F, Tabatabai MA (1977) Phosphatases in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 9:167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goto M, Ehara H, Karita S, Takabe K, Ogawa N, Yamada Y, Ogawa S, Yahaya MS, Morita O (2003) Protective effect of silicon on phenolic biosynthesis and ultraviolet spectral stress in rice crop. Plant Sci 164:349–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Khan N, Bano A (2016) Modulation of phytoremediation and plant growth by treatment with PGPR, Ag nanoparticle and untreated municipal wastewater. Int J Phytorem 18(12):1258–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Khati P, Sharma A, Gangola S, Kumar R, Bhatt P, Kumar G (2017a) Impact of agri-usable nanocompounds on soil microbial activity: an indicator of soil health. CLEAN–Soil, Air, Water. Google Scholar
  15. Khati P, Chaudhary P, Gangola S, Bhatt P, Sharma A (2017b) Nanochitosan supports growth of Zea mays and also maintains soil health following growth. 3 Biotech. Google Scholar
  16. Khodakovskaya M, Dervishi E, Mahmood M, Xu Y, Li Z, Watanabe F, Biris S (2009) Carbon nanotubes are able to penetrate plant seed coat and dramatically affect seed germination and plant growth. ACS Nano 10(3):3221–3227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kiss S, Dragan-Bularda M, Radulescu D (1978) Soil polysaccharidases: activity and agricultural importance. In: Burns RG (ed) Soil enzymes. Academic, London, pp 117–147Google Scholar
  18. Kloepper JW, Leong J, Teinize M, Schroth MN (1980) Enhanced plant growth by siderophores produced by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Nature 286:885–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Khan AG (2005) Role of soil microbes in the rhizospheres of plants growing on trace metal contaminated soils in phytoremediation. J Trace Elements Med Biol 18(4):355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lamparter A, Bachmann J, Goebel MO, Woche SK (2009) Carbon mineralization in soil: impact of wetting-drying, aggregation and water repellency. Geoderma 150:324–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lin D, Xing B (2008) Root Uptake and Phytotoxicity of ZnO Nanoparticles. Environ Sci Technol 42(15):5580–5585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lu CM, Zhang CY, Wen JQ, Wu GR, Tao MX (2002) Research of the effect of nanometer materials on germination and growth enhancement of Glycine max and its mechanism. Soybean Sci 21:168–172Google Scholar
  23. Mishra VK, Kumar A (2009) Impactof metal nanoparticles on the plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Digest J Nanomater Biostruct 4(3):587–592Google Scholar
  24. Navrotsky A, Petrovic I, Hu Y, Chen C, Davis ME (1995) Energetics of microporous materials. J Non-Cryst Solids 192:474–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Petrovic AM (1993) Potential for natural zeolite uses on golf courses. USGA Green Sect 31:11–14Google Scholar
  26. Prasad TNVKV, Sudhakar P, Sreenivasulu Y, Latha P, Munaswamy V, Reddy KR, Sreeprsad TS, Sajanlal PR, Pradeep T (2012) Effect of nanoscale ZnO particles on germination, growth and yield of peanuts. J Plant Nutr 35:905–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raliya R, Tarafdar JC (2013) ZnO nanoparticle biosynthesis and its effect on phosphorous-mobilizing enzyme secretion and gum contents in cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L.). Agric Res 2(1):48–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Raliya R, Tarafdar JC, Biswasa P (2015) TiO2 nanoparticle biosynthesis and its physiological effect on mung bean (Vigna radiate L.). Biotechnol Rep 5:22–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ramesh K, Biswas AK, Somasundaram J, Rao AS (2010) Nanoporous zeolites in farming: current status and issues ahead. Current Sci 99(6):760–764Google Scholar
  30. Schnurer J, Rosswall T (1982) Fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis as a measure of total microbial activity in soil and litter. Appl Environ Microbiol 6:1256–1261Google Scholar
  31. Seif SM, Sorooshzadeh AH, Rezazadeh S, Naghdibadi HA (2011) Effect of nano silver and silver nitrate on seed yield of borage. J Med Plant Res 5(2):171–175Google Scholar
  32. Silva IR, SáMendonça E (2007) Matériaorgânica do solo = Soil organic matter. In: Novais RF, Alvarez VH, Barros NF, Fontes RLF, Cantarutti RB, Neves JC (eds) Fertilidade do solo = Soil fertility. SociedadeBrasileira de Ciência do Solo, Viçosa, MG, pp 275–374 (in Portuguese) Google Scholar
  33. Sinsabaugh RL, Antibus RK, Linkins AE (1991) An enzymic approach to the analysis of microbial activity during plant litter decomposition. Agric, Ecosys Environ 34(1–4):43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Singh A, Singh NB, Hussaina I, Singh H, Singh SC (2015) Plant-nanoparticle interaction: an approach to improve agricultural practices and plant productivity International. J Pharm Sci Invention 2319–6718Google Scholar
  35. Speir TW, Ross DJ (1978) Soil phosphatase and sulphatase. In: Burns RG (ed) Soil enzymes. Academic, London, pp 197–250Google Scholar
  36. Stepanova AN, Yun J, Likhacheva AV, Alonso JM (2007) Multilevel interactions between ethylene and auxin in Arabidopsis roots. Plant Cell 19:2169–2185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suriyaprabha R, Rathinam GK, Prabu YP, Rajendran V, Kannan N (2014) Effect of silica nanoparticles on microbial biomass and silica availability in maize rhizosphere. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. Google Scholar
  38. Sylvia DM, Fuhrmann JJ, Hartel PG, Zuberer DA (2005) Principles and applications of soil microbiology, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  39. Tabatabai MA (1982) Soil enzyme. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 2. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp 903–948Google Scholar
  40. Tabatabai MA, Bremner JM (1969) Use of p-nitrophenylphosphate for assay of soil phosphatase activity. Soil Biol Biochem 1:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tarafdar JC, Sharma S, Raliya R (2013) Nanotechnology: interdisciplinary science of applications. Afr J Biotechnol 12(3):219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Trevors JT (1984) Effect of substrate concentration, inorganic nitrogen, O2 concentration, temperature and pH on dehydrogenase activity in soil. Plant Soil 77(2–3):285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Urbonaviciute A, Samuoliene G, Sakalauskaite J, Duchovskis P, Brazaityte A, Siksnianiene JB, Ulinskaite R, Sabajeviene G, Baranauskis K (2006) The effect of elevated CO2 concentrations on leaf carbohydrate, chlorophyll contents and photosynthesis in radish. Polish J Environ Stud 15:921–925Google Scholar
  44. Villagarcia H, Dervishi E, Silva K, Biris AS, Khodakovskaya MV (2012) Surface chemistry of carbon nanotubes impacts the growth and expression of water channel protein in tomato plants. Small 8:2328–2334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yoshida S, Forno DA, Cock JH (1972) Laboratory manual for physiological studies of rice, 2nd edn. International Rice Research Institute, Los BañosGoogle Scholar
  46. Yang F, Hong F, You W, Liu C, Gao F, Wu C, Yang P (2006) Influences of Nano-anatase TiO2 on the Nitrogen Metabolism of Growing Spinach. Biol Trace Element Res 110(2):179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zheng L, Hong F, Lu S, Liu C (2005) Effect of nano-TiO2 on strength of naturally aged seeds and growth of spinach. Biol Trace Elem Res 104:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhou DM, Jin SY, Wang YJ, Wang P, Weng NY, Wang Y (2012) Assessing the impact of iron-based nanoparticles on pH, dissolved organic carbon, and nutrient availability in soils. Soil Sediment Contam Int J 21(1):101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MicrobiologyG.B Pant University of Agriculture and TechnologyPantnagarIndia
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesG.B Pant University of Agriculture and TechnologyPantnagarIndia
  3. 3.Department of AgronomyG.B Pant University of Agriculture and TechnologyPantnagarIndia

Personalised recommendations