Advertisement

Effect of Substrates on Azotobacter chroococcum-Enriched Vermicompost for Growth of Phaseolus

  • Supriya Sharma
  • Reshma Tuladhar
  • Yukti Basnet
  • Sarita Manandhar
  • Shanti Bhattarai
  • Anjana Singh
  • Ajit Varma
Chapter
Part of the Microorganisms for Sustainability book series (MICRO, volume 13)

Abstract

Inoculation of Azotobacter chroococcum in preparing organic compost by vermicomposting using Eisenia fetida (common names: red worm, brandling worm, panfish worm, trout worm, tiger worm, red wiggler worm, red Californian earthworm) can promote the growth of the Phaseolus bean. Various abiotic stresses, such as drought and salinity, are among the major environmental constraints that limit growth, productivity, and quality of plants. The growth promotion of Phaseolus bean with inoculation of A. chroococcum in the presence of vermicompost using different substrate combinations was assessed by a number of nodules, shoot length, root length, dry shoot weight, dry root weight, and nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK) content of the plant. Among different substrates used, cow dung only and cow dung plus straw could be enriched with A. chroococcum with survival period up to 5 weeks. However, cow dung plus chopped grass and cow dung plus ground grass couldn’t be enriched with A. chroococcum. A significant positive response was noted in all growth parameters when the plant was inoculated with A. chroococcum in the presence of vermicompost compared to the untreated control plants. Cow dung plus straw had been used as a substrate for the enrichment of vermicomposting with A. chroococcum.

Keywords

Vermicomposting Azotobacter Abiotic stress Nodules Untreated Enrichment 

References

  1. Acharya MS (1997) Integrated vermiculture for rural development. Int J Rural Stud 4:8–10Google Scholar
  2. Atlas RM, Bartha R (2000) Biogeochemical cycling. In: Earl W, Fogel L, Wong G (eds) Microbial ecology: fundamentals and applications, 4th edn. Pearson Education Asia, Singapore, pp 417Google Scholar
  3. Barea JM, Brown ME (1974) Effects on plant growth produced by Azotobacter paspali related to synthesis of plant growth regulating substances. J Appl Bacteriol 37(4):583–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beijerinck M (1901) Sur des microbes oligonitrophiles. Archives néerl. Science Series 2(8):190–217Google Scholar
  5. Bhandari SC, Somani LL (1990) Azotobacter. In: Somani LL, Bhandari SC, Saxena SN, Vyas KK (eds) Biofertilizers. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, pp 354–359Google Scholar
  6. Bhattarai H (2001) Effects of co-inoculation of Azotobacter chroococcum and Bradyrhizobium japonicum in nodulation, growth and nitrogen fixation of soybean. MSc thesis. Tribhuan University, Kathmandu, NepalGoogle Scholar
  7. Biswas JC, Ladha JK, Dazzo FB (2000) Rhizobia inoculation improves nutrient uptake and growth of lowland rice. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:1644–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borges YV, Alves L, Bianchi I, Espindola JC, Oliveira JM, Radetski CM, Somensi CA (2017) Optimization of animal manure vermicomposting based on biomass production of earthworms and higher plants. J Environ Sci Health B 52(11):791–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bressani R (1993) Grain quality of common beans. Food Rev Int 9(2):237–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Das J, Ramesh KV, Maithri U, Mutangana D, Suresh CK (2014) Response of aerobic rice to Piriformospora indica. Indian J Exp Biol 52:237–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Deacon J (2006) The nitrogen cycle and nitrogen fixation. In: The microbial world: the nitrogen cycle and nitrogen fixation. Jim Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology, The University of Edinburgh, pp, pp 569–595Google Scholar
  12. Edwards CA, Burrows I (1988) The potential of earthworm compost as plant growth media. In: Neuhauser E, Edwards CA (eds) Earthworms in waste and environmental management. SPB Academic, The Hague, pp 2l–32Google Scholar
  13. Garrity GB, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JR (eds) (2005) The proteobacteria, Part B: the Gammaproteobacteria.  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-28022-7. Springer the US, pp 384Google Scholar
  14. Gerlach M, Voel J (1902) Nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Zentralblatt fur Bakteriologie 2:817Google Scholar
  15. Hait S, Tare V (2011) Optimizing vermistabilization of waste activated sludge using vermicompost as bulking material. Waste Manag 31(3):502–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kay DE (1979) Food legumes. London: Tropical Products Institute- TPI crop and product digest no. 3. London, ISBN 0859540855, pp 435Google Scholar
  17. Kennedy C, Rudnick P, MacDonald ML, Melton T (2015) Azotobacter Bergey’s manual of systematics of archaea and bacteria, pp 1–33Google Scholar
  18. Khan AA, Mohammad S, Muhammad S Naqvi S (2009) Phosphorus solubilizing bacteria: occurrence, mechanisms and their role in crop production. J Agric Biol Sci 1(1):48–58Google Scholar
  19. Manandhar S, Tuladhar R, Prajapati K, Singh A, Varma A (2017) Effect of Azotobacter chroococcum and Piriformospora indica on Oryza sativa in presence of vermicompost. In: Prasad R, Varma A, Tuteja N (eds) Mycorrhiza-nutrient uptake, biocontrol, ecorestoration. Springer, Cham, pp 327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Prajapati K, Yami KD, Singh A (2010) Plant growth promotional effect of Azotobacter chroococcum, Piriformospora indica, and vermicompost on rice plant. Nepal J Sci Technol 9:85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prasad R, Kumar M, Varma A (2015) Role of PGPR in soil fertility and plant health. In: Egamberdieva D, Shrivastava S, Varma A (eds) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and medicinal plants. Springer, Cham, pp 247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saha B, Devi C, Khwairakpam M, Kalamdhad AS (2018) Vermicomposting and anaerobic digestion-viable alternative options for terrestrial weed management-A review. Biotechnol Rep (Amst) 17:70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sharma K, Garg VK (2017) Comparative analysis of vermicompost quality produced from rice straw and paper waste employing earthworm Eisenia fetida (Sav.). Bioresour Technol 250:708–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Singh A (2004) Immunocharacterization of Piriformospora indica and other identical root endophytes. PhD thesis. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  25. Singh A, Sharma S (2002) Composting of a crop residue through treatment with microorganisms and subsequent vermicompost. Bioresour Technol 85:107–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tuladhar R, Shrestha J, Singh A, Varma A (2013) Enhanced productivity associated with tripartite symbiosis between Phaseolus, Rhizobia, and Piriformospora indica in presence of vermicompost. In: Varma A, Kost G, Oelmüller R (eds) Piriformospora indica. Soil biology, vol 33. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 191–199Google Scholar
  27. Varma A, Sudha S, Franken P (1999) Piriformospora indica- a cultivable plant growth promoting root endophytes with similarities to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:2741–2744PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Walsh KB (1995) Physiology of the legume nodule and its response to stress. Soil Biol Biochem 27:637–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Supriya Sharma
    • 1
  • Reshma Tuladhar
    • 1
  • Yukti Basnet
    • 1
  • Sarita Manandhar
    • 2
  • Shanti Bhattarai
    • 3
  • Anjana Singh
    • 1
  • Ajit Varma
    • 4
  1. 1.Central Department of MicrobiologyTribhuvan UniversityKathmanduNepal
  2. 2.Tri-Chandra Multiple CampusTribhuvan UniversityKathmanduNepal
  3. 3.Nepal Agricultural Research Council KhumaltarKathmanduNepal
  4. 4.Amity Institute of Microbial TechnologyAmity UniversityNoidaIndia

Personalised recommendations