Printer Friendly

Impact of microbial cultures on soil biological quality and growth of spinach grown in polluted soils.

Soil fertility is a complex concept that involves many interacting parameters. Cultivated plants may suffer nutritional stresses when the amount or availability of soil nutrients is lower than that required for sustaining metabolic processes in each growth stage. Thus, restoring of nutrients and enhancing their availability by improving soil characteristics and efficiency of plants, are the main objectives of the modern agriculture. Due to the increasing sensitivity to environmental and economic issues, researchers and consumers are more and more aware of the impact of agriculture on the environment. Pollutants such as heavy metals and chemicals in the soil, water and air are affected by various physicochemical, biological, and environmental factors. Bioremediation is a biological process by which environmental pollutants are removed or transformed to less toxic substances. Soil amendments including fertilizer and lime, appropriate moisture levels, and periodic tilling can maximize or improve bioremediation (Brigmon et al. 2002). Phytoremediation specifically utilizes plants for contaminant control and has been combined with soil amendments for increasing or reducing metals uptake (Wilde et al. 2005).

Plants tolerant to heavy metals are able to immobilize metals by accumulation in the roots, adsorption in/onto the roots, and/or precipitation in the rhizosphere. Currently, most of what is known about aided phytostabilization of heavy metal-contaminated soils focuses on analysis of physicochemical soil properties, especially concentration of bioavailable forms of metals/ metalloids and their accumulation in plant tissues (Wilde et al. 2005).

Bioindicators are the most important criterion of soil quality (Alkorta et al. 2010; Markert et al. 2003). Many definitions of soil quality have been suggested. However, a short and comprehensive definition is given by Doran and Parkin (1994) who have defined soil quality/soil health as "The capacity of a soil to function within ecosystem boundaries to sustain biological productivity, maintain environmental quality and promote plant and animal health". Phytoremediation, the use of plants to extract, sequester, and/or detoxify pollutants through physical, chemical, and biological processes (Saxena et al., 1999) has been reported to be an effective, in situ, non-intrusive, low-cost, aesthetically pleasing, ecologically benign, socially accepted technology to remediate polluted soils (Alkorta and Garbisu, 2001; Garbisu et al., 2002; Weber et al., 2001). It also helps prevent landscape destruction and enhances activity and diversity of soil microorganisms to maintain healthy ecosystems, which is consequently considered to be a more attractive alternative than traditional methods to the approaches that are currently in use for dealing with heavy metal contamination.

The objective of this work was to use traditional microbiological methods based on culture techniques to evaluate the biological quality of heavy metal-contaminated soil that has been remediated with aided phytostabilization

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Soil Samples and Soil Characteristics

Soil samples of polluted and unpolluted soils were collected before sowing and analysed for the physical(pH, EC, and particle size and chemical characters like N,P,K and organic carbon parameters) and microbiological properties by adopting standard procedures at Department of Agricultural Microbiology and Bio-energy and Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture, Rajendranagar, PJTSAU, Hyderabad. Water samples were also analyzed before sowing of crop in polluted and unpolluted soils. (table 1).

Crop details

The pot culture experiment was conducted at Department of Agricultural Microbiology and Bioenergy during 2014-15. For this investigation leafy vegetable crop, spinach beet, Pusa Jyothi variety was sown in pot experiments followed completely randomized block design with four treatments and three replications. Microbial cultures (Pseudomonas, VAM) collected from our laboratory. The treatments for poly bag experiment were fixed as twelve treatments each treatment with three replications were designed. All three replications were used to record observations on yield, quality parameters of spinach around 30 and 60 days after sowing.

In this context of pot culture experiment having twelve treatments and followed statistical design in this treatment subdivided into three parts: polluted soil with supply of fresh water, unpolluted soil with supply of fresh water and unpolluted soil with supply of polluted water. Polluted soil with supply of fresh water have T1: SF Soil+FYM@12 t/ha, T2: SF Soil + FYM + VAM + Pseudomonas, T3: SF Soil + RDF, T4: SF Soil + RDF + FYM + VAM + Pseudomonas. Unpolluted soil with supply of fresh water, have T5: Soil + FYM, T6: Soil + FYM + VAM + Pseudomonas, T7: Soil + RDF, T8: Soil + RDF + FYM + VAM + Pseudomonas. Unpolluted soil with supply of polluted water, have T9:Soil + FYM, T10: Soil+ FYM + VAM + Pseudomonas, T11: Soil + RDF, T12: Soil + RDF + FYM + VAM + Pseudomonas. The cleaned poly bags were filled with 8 kg soil and this soil was mixed with chemical fertilizer (0.14: 0.24: 0.37 g poly [bag.sup.-1] NPK), farm yard manure (78.75 g poly [bag.sup.-1]) and Vesicular Arbuscular Mycorrhizae (100 to 150 g of infected propagules poly [bag.sup.-1]) according to the treatments which were neatly arranged in the net house.

Chemical fertilizers

Phosphorus and potassium @ 0.24 g poly [bag.sup.-1] [P.sub.2][O.sub.5] and 0.37 g poly [bag.sup.-1] [K.sub.2]O were applied through Di Ammonium Phosphate and Muriate of Potash respectively as basal application. Nitrogen was applied in the form of Urea @ 0.24 g poly [bag.sup.-1] after germination and after 30 and 60 days after sowing. Farmyard manure was applied @ 78.75 g poly [bag.sup.-1] which was mixed with soil according to the treatments requirement. EC and pH of FYM were 0.95 dS/m and 7.59 respectively and Ni, Co, Cd content in FYM was 0.91, 0.20, 0.01-0.02 respectively.

Seed Sowing and maintenance

The poly bags were sown with Pusa Jyothi variety of spinach beet at the rate of 20 seeds per poly bag. After germination, thinning was done and routine care was taken to protect the plants from pest and diseases.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Microbial population (CFU [g.sup.-1] of Soil)

Influence of microbial cultures on biological quality of polluted soil and spinach yield at 30 DAS and 60 DAS on the microbial population in soil was estimated viz., bacteria, Rhizobium, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, actinomycetes, Pseudomonas, molds and VAM show the data presented in the Table and.

Bacterial population (x [10.sup.7] CFU [g.sup.-1] of Soil)

Bacterial population in soil differed significantly on application of microbial cultures on biological quality of polluted soil and spinach yield. Initial bacterial population in the polluted soil was 30 x [10.sup.7] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil and in unpolluted soil was 40 x [10.sup.7] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil. At 30 DAS, treatment [T.sub.12] recorded significantly higher bacterial population (124.21) as compared to all other treatments but was on par with treatment T2 (117.85) and [T.sub.8] (123.85). The significantly lowest (82.98) bacterial population was found with the treatment [T.sub.7]. At 60 DAS, treatment [T.sub.8] recorded significantly higher (88.68) bacterial population than all other treatments and treatment T5 (83.38) and [T.sub.12] (84.21) was on par with [T.sub.8] The significantly lowest (46.46) bacterial population recorded in the treatment [T.sub.9].

Rhizobium population (x 103 CFU [g.sup.-1] of Soil)

Rhizobial population differed significantly as influenced by application of microbial cultures on biological quality of polluted soil and spinach yield. Initial rhizobial population in polluted soil was 12.4 x [10.sup.3] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil and in unpolluted soil was 18.4 x [10.sup.3] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil. At 30 DAS, treatment [T.sub.6] recorded significantly higher (29.23) rhizobial population as compared to all other treatments and was on par with treatment T5 (26.23), [T.sub.7] (26.58), [T.sub.8] (28.00) and Tn (27.20). The significantly lowest (16.32) rhizobial population recorded in the treatment T4. At 60 DAS, treatment [T.sub.6] recorded significantly higher (20.71) rhizobial population as compared to all other treatments and was on par with the treatment T5 (18.66), [T.sub.7] (17.90) and [T.sub.9] (17.00). The significantly lowest rhizobial population (10.7) recorded in the treatment [T.sub.4].

Azotobacter population (x [10.sup.3] CFU [g.sup.-1] of Soil)

Azotobacter population differed significantly as influenced by application of microbial cultures on biological quality of polluted soil and spinach yield. Initial Azotobacter population in polluted soil was 3.1 x [10.sup.3] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil and in unpolluted soil was 4.9 x [10.sup.3] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil. At 30 DAS, treatment [T.sub.7] recorded significantly higher (15.13) Azotobacter population among all other treatments and was on par with [T.sub.6] (12.7), [T.sub.9] (14.26) and [T.sub.11] (15.00). The significantly lowest (9.7) Azotobacter population found in the treatment [T.sub.4]. At 60 DAS, treatment T5 recorded significantly higher (12.46) Azotobacter population as compared to all other treatments. The significantly lowest Azotobacter population recorded in the treatment [T.sub.3] (2.43).

Azospirillum population (x [10.sup.3] CFU [g.sup.-1] of Soil)

The population of Azospirillum differed significantly as influenced by application of microbial cultures on biological quality of polluted soil and spinach yield (Table &) Initial Azospirillum population in polluted soil was 4.2 x [10.sup.3] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil and in unpolluted soil was 6.5 x [10.sup.3] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil. At 30 DAS, treatment [T.sub.12] recorded significantly higher (12.1) Azospirillum population among all other treatments and was on par with [T.sub.8] (10.5), [T.sub.9] (10.9), [T.sub.10] (11.4) and [T.sub.11] (12.00). The significantly lowest (8.36) Azospirillum population found in the treatment [T.sub.1] and [T.sub.5]. At 60 DAS, treatment [T.sub.12] recorded significantly higher (9.4) Azospirillum population as compared to all other treatments and was on par with treatment [T.sub.4] (8.53). The significantly lowest Azospirillum population recorded in the treatment [T.sub.11] (4.26).

Actinomycetes population (x [10.sup.4] CFU [g.sup.-1] of Soil)

Actinomycetes population differed significantly as influenced by application of microbial cultures on biological quality of polluted soil and spinach yield (Table &). Initial Actinomycetes population in polluted soil was 8.2 x [10.sup.4] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil and in unpolluted soil was 6.2 x [10.sup.3] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil. At 30 DAS, treatment [T.sub.7] recorded significantly higher (41.77) actinomycetes population among all other treatments. The significantly lowest (21.48) Actinomycetes population found in the treatment [T.sub.9]. At 60 DAS, treatment [T.sub.7] recorded significantly higher (34.73) actinomycetes population as compared to all other treatments and was on par with treatment T5 (34.27). The significantly lowest actinomycetes population recorded in the treatment [T.sub.9] (15.67).

Pseudomonas population (x [10.sup.4] CFU [g.sup.-1] of Soil)

Pseudomonas population differed significantly as influenced by application of microbial cultures on biological quality of polluted soil and spinach yield.

Initial Pseudomonas population in polluted soil was 18.2 x [10.sup.4] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil and in unpolluted soil was 28 x [10.sup.4] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil. At 30 DAS, treatment [T.sub.10] recorded significantly higher (96.10) Pseudomonas population as compared to all other treatments and was on par with treatment [T.sub.12] (96.00). The significantly lowest Pseudomonas population recorded in the treatment [T.sub.1] (29.16). At 60 DAS, treatment [T.sub.12] recorded significantly higher (60.25) Pseudomonas population as compared to all other treatments and was on par with [T.sub.7] (58.68). The significantly lowest (30.89) Pseudomonas population was recorded in the treatment [T.sub.11].

Molds population (x [10.sup.4] CFU [g.sup.-1] of Soil)

Molds population differed significantly as influenced by application of microbial cultures on biological quality of polluted soil and spinach yield. Initial molds population in the polluted soil was 15 x [10.sup.4] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil and in unpolluted soil was 29 x [10.sup.4] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil. At 30 DAS, treatment [T.sub.3] recorded significantly higher (17.91) molds population as compared to all other treatments. The significantly lowest (4.33) molds population was recorded in the treatment [T.sub.10]. At 60 DAS, higher molds population (11.32) was observed with the treatment [T.sub.3] as compared to all other treatments and was on par with treatment [T.sub.1] (10.04). The significantly lowest (1.95) fungal population recorded in the treatment with [T.sub.8].

VAM population (x [10.sup.3] CFU [g.sup.-1] of Soil)

VAM population differed significantly as influenced by application of microbial cultures on biological quality of polluted soil and spinach yield (Table 4.1& 4.2, Fig 4.8). Initial VAM population in polluted soil was 4.8 x [10.sup.0] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil and in unpolluted soil was 7.2 x [10.sup.3] CFU [g.sup.-1] of soil. At 30 DAS, treatment [T.sub.7] recorded significantly higher (24.13) VAM population among all other treatments and was on par with [T.sub.6] (20.80). The significantly lowest (7.49) VAM population found in the treatment [T.sub.3]. At 60 DAS, treatment [T.sub.12] recorded significantly higher (9.00) VAM population as compared to all other treatments and was on par with treatment [T.sub.2] (8.04), [T.sub.6] (8.99), [T.sub.9] (8.34), [T.sub.10] (7.88). The significantly lowest VAM population recorded in the treatment [T.sub.7] (4.14).

Microbial population recorded in the rhizosphere soil at flowering stage and harvesting stage indicated significant increase due to application of microbial cultures. Population was significantly higher under the treatment [T.sub.8]: SF Soil + RDF + FYM + VAM + Psuedomonas and [T.sub.12] = Soil + RDF + FYM + VAM + Psuedomonas. This is due to application of VAM and Pseudomonas along with FYM will enhance high number of cells in the rhizosphere which will compete with the nature genera.

Microbial Biomass Carbon

Microbial biomass carbon differed significantly at harvesting stage (60 DAS) as influenced by application of microbial cultures on biological quality of polluted soil and spinach yield. At 60 DAS, treatment [T.sub.12] recorded significantly higher (129.99) microbial biomass carbon as compared to all other treatments and treatment [T.sub.8] (123.68) was on par with [T.sub.12]. The significantly lowest microbial biomass carbon recorded in the treatment [T.sub.1] (83.3). The MBC was higher in unpolluted soil compared to polluted soil individually that the microbial activity and mass is reduced in polluted soil due to the accumulated pollutants.

Leaf fresh weight (g [plant.sup.-1])

The data presented revealed that the leaf fresh weight was significantly affected by different treatments with RDF, combination of inorganic, organic manures (FYM, and biofertilizer) at 30 DAS and 60 DAS of crop. The highest leaf fresh weight [plant.sup.-1] was recorded in treatment [T.sub.8] (41.63 g [plant.sup.-1]) than the rest of treatments at 30 DAS in unpolluted soils. The lowest leaf fresh weight per plant was showed in [T.sub.3] (23.02 g [plant.sup.-1]) at 30 DAS in polluted soils. The highest leaf fresh weight was observed in [T.sub.8] (70.03 g [plant.sup.-1]) and the lowest value observed in [T.sub.9] (38.12 g [plant.sup.-1]) at 60 DAS in unpolluted soil. It was observed that the treatment [T.sub.8] (70.03 g [plant.sup.-1]) comprising RDF + FYM + VAM and Pseudomonas showed highest values at 30 DAS, 60 DAS in unpolluted soils over other treatments.

Leaf dry weight (g [plant.sup.-1])

The data presented revealed that the leaf dry weight was significantly influenced by recommended dose of fertilizers, combination of inorganic, organic manures (FYM) and biofertilizers (VAM and Pseudomonas) at 30DAS and 60 DAS. The highest leaf dry weight [plant.sup.-1] was observed in [T.sub.8] (6.62 g [plant.sup.-1]) and lowest value in [T.sub.3] (3.16 g [plant.sup.-1]) was observed at 30 DAS. The highest leaf dry weight was observed in [T.sub.8] (4.17 g [plant.sup.-1]) and the lowest in [T.sub.3] (2.22 g [plant.sup.-1]) at 60 DAS. Among all the treatments, [T.sub.8] comprising RDF, FYM, VAM and Pseudomonas was showed highest dry weight of leaf per plant at 30 DAS & 60 DAS in unpolluted soils. In same way, the lowest dry weight of leaf was found in [T.sub.3] at 30 and 60 DAS in polluted soils. Similar results were reported by Madhvi et al. (2014). It was reported that increased leaf area and leaf dry weight in spinach was due to application of chemical fertilizers along with organic manures and biofertilizers.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together the results obtained in the present study clearly indicate that use of the polluted soil or polluted water for raising spinach beet crop gave reduced yield in terms of leaf fresh weight and dry weight. The yield was significantly highest in the treatment ([T.sub.8]) with FYM, RDF and microbial cultures VAM & Pseudomonas in a normal soil irrigated with fresh water. The microbial populations viz. bacteria, molds were more influenced by the application of FYM and chemical fertilizers irrespective of the soil or water pollution.

REFERENCES

(1.) Wilde, E., R.L. Brigmon, D. Dunn, M. Heitkamp, D. Dagnan., Use of vetiver grass for phytoextraction of lead from firing range soil. Chemosphere 2005; 61: 1451-1457.

(2.) Brigmon, R.L., D. Camper, F. Stutzenberger. Bioremediation of compounds hazardous to health and the environment--an overview. In: Biotransformations: Bioremediation Technology for Health and Environmental Protection (ed. V.P. Singh), pp. 1-28. Elsevier Science Publishers, The Netherlands, 2002.

(3.) Alkorta, I., J.M. Becerri, C. Garbisu. Recovery of soil health: The ultimate goal of soil remediation processes. In: Trends in Bioremediation and Phytoremediation (ed. G. PBaza), pp. 1-9. Research Signpost, India, 2010.

(4.) Markert, B.A., A.M. Breure, H.G. Zechmeister. Bioindicators and Biomonitors. Principles, Concepts and Applications. 2003; 997p. Elsevier Science Ltd.

(5.) Doran, J.W., T.B. Parkin., Defining and assessing soil quality. In: Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment (ed. J.W. Doran, D.C. Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek, B.A. Stewart), 1994; 3-12. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, US.

(6.) Garbisu, C., Alkorta, I., Phytoextraction: a cost-effective plant-based technology for the removal of metals from the environment. Bioresour. Technol., 2001; 77(3):229-236.

(7.) Garbisu, C., Hernandez-Allica, J., Barrutia, O., Alkorta, I., Becerril, J.M., Phytoremediation: a technology using green plants to remove contaminants from polluted areas. Rev. Environ. Health, 2002; 17(3):173-188.

(8.) Weber, O., Scholz, R.W., Bvhlmann, R., Grasmuck, D., Risk perception of heavy metal soil contamination and attitudes toward decontamination strategies. Risk Anal., 2001; 21(5):967-977.

(9.) Madhavi, Y., Goud, P. V., Reddy, K. M and Saidulu, A. Effect of different levels of vermicompost, castor cake, poultry manure and biofertilizers on growth and yield of Indian spinach (Beta vulgaris var. bengalensis). Crop Research. 2014; 37(1/3): 148-151.

Alavala Uma Rajshekhar [1], R. Subhash Reddy [1] and P. Chandrasekhar Rao [2]

[1] Department of Agricultural Microbiology & Bioenergy,

[2] Department of Soil science and Agricultural chemistry, College of Agriculture, Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural university, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad--500030, India.

http://dx.doi.org/10.22207/JPAM.10.4.29

(Received: 11 August 2016; accepted: 24 September 2016)

* To whom all correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: damuagmicro2012@gmail.com
Table 1. Effect of microbial cultures on microbial biomass
carbon at harvesting stage (60 DAS) in polluted
and unpolluted soils of spinach beet

Treatments                                      60 DAS

Polluted Soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.1] - SF Soil + FYM                       83.30
[T.sub.2] - SF Soil + FYM + VAM + Psuedomonas   98.30
[T.sub.3] - SF Soil + RDF                       89.31
[T.sub.4] - SF Soil + RDF + FYM +               103.16
  VAM + Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.5] - SF Soil + FYM + Psuedomonas         109.00
[T.sub.6] - SF Soil + FYM+ VAM + Psuedomonas    120.03
[T.sub.7] - SF Soil + RDF                       95.20
[T.sub.8] - SF Soil + RDF + FYM +               123.68
  VAM + Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of polluted water

[T.sub.9] - Soil + FYM                          95.67
[T.sub.10] - Soil + FYM + VAM + Psuedomonas     118.66
[T.sub.11] - Soil + RDF                         103.38
[T.sub.12] - Soil + RDF + FYM +                 129.99
  VAM + Psuedomonas
SE m[+ or -]                                    2.383
C.D at 5%                                       6.955

SF soil = Student Farm Soil, RDF = Recommended
dose of fertilizers, FYM = Farm Yard Manure

Table 2. Effect of microbial cultures on fresh weight at 30
and 60 DAS in polluted and unpolluted soils of spinach beet

Treatments                                       Fresh weight of
                                                 leaf/plant

                                                 30DAS   30DAS

Polluted Soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.1] - SF Soil + FYM                        30.48   46.48
[T.sub.2] - SF Soil + FYM + VAM + Psuedomonas    34.02   54.05
[T.sub.3] - SF Soil + RDF                        23.02   38.65
[T.sub.4] - SF Soil + RDF + FYM +                39.40   60.54
  VAM + Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.5] - SF Soil + FYM + Psuedomonas          31.30   52.30
[T.sub.6] - SF Soil + FYM+ VAM + Psuedomonas     39.89   64.87
[T.sub.7] - SF Soil + RDF                        26.61   40.32
[T.sub.8] - SF Soil + RDF + FYM +                41.63   70.03
  VAM + Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of polluted water

[T.sub.9] - Soil + FYM                           26.40   38.12
[T.sub.10] - Soil + FYM + VAM + Psuedomonas      34.71   61.03
[T.sub.11] - Soil + RDF                          28.82   50.37
[T.sub.12] - Soil + RDF + FYM +                  41.36   68.10
  VAM + Psuedomonas
SE m[+ or -]                                     0.176   0.167
C.D at 5%                                        0.513   0.488

Table 3. Effect of microbial cultures on dry weight at 30 and
60 DAS in polluted and unpolluted soils of spinach beet

Treatments                                       Fresh weight
                                                 of leaf/plant

                                                 30DAS   30DAS

Polluted Soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.1] - SF Soil + FYM                        4.05    2.84
[T.sub.2] - SF Soil + FYM + VAM + Psuedomonas    4.73    3.24
[T.sub.3] - SF Soil + RDF                        3.16    2.22
[T.sub.4] - SF Soil + RDF +                      5.55    3.58
  FYM + VAM + Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.5] - SF Soil + FYM + Psuedomonas          4.62    2.93
[T.sub.6] - SF Soil + FYM + VAM + Psuedomonas    5.82    3.80
[T.sub.7] - SF Soil + RDF                        3.55    2.52
[T.sub.8] - SF Soil + RDF + FYM +                6.62    4.17
  VAM + Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of polluted water

[T.sub.9] - Soil + FYM                           3.47    2.55
[T.sub.10] - Soil + FYM + VAM + Psuedomonas      5.45    3.38
[T.sub.11] - Soil + RDF                          4.55    2.86
[T.sub.12] - Soil + RDF + FYM +                  5.97    3.95
  VAM + Psuedomonas
SE m [+ or -]                                    0.046   0.03
C.D at 5%                                        0.133   0.103

Table 4. Influence of different treatments on
microbial population in polluted and unpolluted
soils of spinach beet at 30DAS

Treatments (30 days)              Bacteria        Rhizobium
                                [10.sup.7]CFU   [10.sup.3]CFU
                                   g/soil          g/soil

Polluted Soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.1] - SF Soil+FYM             101.1           19.31
[T.sub.2] - SF Soil+FYM+VAM+       117.85           17.59
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.3] - SF Soil+RDF             91.82           19.59
[T.sub.4] - SF Soil+RDF+FYM+        83.31           16.32
  VAM+Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.5] - SF Soil+FYM            101.45           26.23
[T.sub.6] - SF Soil+FYM+            84.92           29.23
  VAM+Psuedomonas
[T.sub.7] - SF Soil+RDF             82.98           26.58
[T.sub.8] - SF Soil+RDF+           123.85           28.00
  FYM+VAM+Psttedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of polluted water

[T.sub.9] - Soil+FYM                93.1            19.6
[T.sub.10] - Soil+FYM+VAM+          85.1            23.3
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.11] - Soil+RDF               93.81           27.2
[T.sub.12] - Soil+RDF+FYM+         124.21           23.80
  VAM+Psuedomonas
SE m[+ or -]                        2.794           1.063
C.D at 5%                           8.155           3.103

Treatments (30 days)             Azotobacter    Azospirillum
                                [10.sup.3]CFU   [10.sup.3]CFU
                                   g/soil          g/soil

Polluted Soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.1] - SF Soil+FYM             10.16           8.36
[T.sub.2] - SF Soil+FYM+VAM+        11.2            9.36
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.3] - SF Soil+RDF              9.7            9.63
[T.sub.4] - SF Soil+RDF+FYM+        10.43           10.46
  VAM+Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.5] - SF Soil+FYM             12.63           8.36
[T.sub.6] - SF Soil+FYM+            12.7            9.13
  VAM+Psuedomonas
[T.sub.7] - SF Soil+RDF             15.13            9.4
[T.sub.8] - SF Soil+RDF+            11.46           10.5
  FYM+VAM+Psttedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of polluted water

[T.sub.9] - Soil+FYM                14.26           10.9
[T.sub.10] - Soil+FYM+VAM+          11.26           11.4
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.11] - Soil+RDF                15              12
[T.sub.12] - Soil+RDF+FYM+          12.73           12.1
  VAM+Psuedomonas
SE m[+ or -]                        0.841           0.546
C.D at 5%                           2.454           1.594

Treatments (30 days)            Actinonivcetes    Pseudomonas
                                [10.sup.4]CFU    [10.sup.4]CFU
                                    g/soil          g/soil

Polluted Soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.1] - SF Soil+FYM             28.18            29.16
[T.sub.2] - SF Soil+FYM+VAM+          22             78.68
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.3] - SF Soil+RDF             32.28            59.75
[T.sub.4] - SF Soil+RDF+FYM+        23.61            71.43
  VAM+Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.5] - SF Soil+FYM             24.51            84.13
[T.sub.6] - SF Soil+FYM+            26.31            85.72
  VAM+Psuedomonas
[T.sub.7] - SF Soil+RDF             41.77            74.40
[T.sub.8] - SF Soil+RDF+            31.35            55.48
  FYM+VAM+Psttedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of polluted water

[T.sub.9] - Soil+FYM                21.48            47.04
[T.sub.10] - Soil+FYM+VAM+          22.16            96.1
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.11] - Soil+RDF               32.14            43.85
[T.sub.12] - Soil+RDF+FYM+          32.01            96.00
  VAM+Psuedomonas
SE m[+ or -]                        1.732            1.657
C.D at 5%                           5.054            4.837

Treatments (30 days)                Molds       VAAIX10
                                [lO.sup.3]CFU
                                   g/soil

Polluted Soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.1] - SF Soil+FYM             13.79        9.58
[T.sub.2] - SF Soil+FYM+VAM+        9.73         12.92
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.3] - SF Soil+RDF             17.91        7.49
[T.sub.4] - SF Soil+RDF+FYM+        7.88         15.15
  VAM+Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.5] - SF Soil+FYM             12.30        11.55
[T.sub.6] - SF Soil+FYM+            11.51        20.80
  VAM+Psuedomonas
[T.sub.7] - SF Soil+RDF             9.59         24.13
[T.sub.8] - SF Soil+RDF+            6.01         14.46
  FYM+VAM+Psttedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of polluted water

[T.sub.9] - Soil+FYM                9.80         16.40
[T.sub.10] - Soil+FYM+VAM+          4.33         13.85
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.11] - Soil+RDF               10.41        14.29
[T.sub.12] - Soil+RDF+FYM+          5.16         15.39
  VAM+Psuedomonas
SE m[+ or -]                        0.758        1.326
C.D at 5%                           2.213        3.871

Table 5. Influence of different treatments on
microbial population in polluted and unpolluted
soils of spinach beet at harvesting stage (60DAS)

Treatments (30 days)               Bacteria        Rhizobium
                                [10.sup.7] CFU   [10.sup.3] CFU
                                    g/soil           g/soil

Polluted Soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.1] - SF Soil+FYM             60.68             12.5
[T.sub.2] - SF Soil+FYM+VAM+        53.25            11.96
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.3] - SF Soil +RDF            49.05            11.41
[T.sub.4] - SF Soil+RDF+FYM+        63.78             10.7
  VAM+Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.5] - SF Soil+FYM             83.38            18.66
[T.sub.6] - SF Soil+FYM+VAM+        55.41            20.71
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.7] - SF Soil+RDF             49.57            17.90
[T.sub.8] - SF Soil+RDF+FYM+        88.68            15.79
  VAM+Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of polluted water

[T.sub.9] - Soil+FYM                46.46            17.00
[T.sub.10] - Soil+FYM+VAM+          59.14            16.53
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.11] - Soil+RDF               50.59            15.59
[T.sub.12] - Soil+RDF+FYM+          84.21            15.92
  VAM+Psuedomonas
SE m[+ or -]                        1.473            1.337
C.D at 5%                           4.299            3.902

Treatments (30 days)             Azotobacter      Azospirillum
                                [10.sup.3]CFU    [10.sup.3]CFU
                                    g/soil           g/soil

Polluted Soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.1] - SF Soil+FYM              4.3              5.43
[T.sub.2] - SF Soil+FYM+VAM+         9.2              4.76
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.3] - SF Soil +RDF             2.43             6.3
[T.sub.4] - SF Soil+RDF+FYM+         9.8              8.53
  VAM+Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.5] - SF Soil+FYM             12.46             4.43
[T.sub.6] - SF Soil+FYM+VAM+         2.73             6.5
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.7] - SF Soil+RDF              5.1               8
[T.sub.8] - SF Soil+RDF+FYM+         5.63             7.2
  VAM+Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of polluted water

[T.sub.9] - Soil+FYM                 9.5              5.4
[T.sub.10] - Soil+FYM+VAM+           9.9              5.5
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.11] - Soil+RDF                9.43             4.26
[T.sub.12] - Soil+RDF+FYM+          10.43             9.4
  VAM+Psuedomonas
SE m[+ or -]                        0.523            0.392
C.D at 5%                           1.526            1.144

Treatments (30 days)            Actinoniycetes    Pseudomonas
                                [10.sup.4]CFU    [10.sup.4]CFU
                                    g/soil          g/soil

Polluted Soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.1] - SF Soil+FYM             21.16            38.3
[T.sub.2] - SF Soil+FYM+VAM+        19.01            37.17
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.3] - SF Soil +RDF            24.86            41.23
[T.sub.4] - SF Soil+RDF+FYM+        16.55            34.68
  VAM+Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.5] - SF Soil+FYM             34.27            54.24
[T.sub.6] - SF Soil+FYM+VAM+        26.58            45.48
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.7] - SF Soil+RDF             34.73            58.68
[T.sub.8] - SF Soil+RDF+FYM+        22.94            50.86
  VAM+Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of polluted water

[T.sub.9] - Soil+FYM                15.67            25.42
[T.sub.10] - Soil+FYM+VAM+          19.44            53.98
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.11] - Soil+RDF               24.41            30.89
[T.sub.12] - Soil+RDF+FYM+          23.63            60.25
  VAM+Psuedomonas
SE m[+ or -]                        2.040            1.857
C.D at 5%                           5.956            5.420

Treatments (30 days)               Molds        VAAIX10
                                [lO.sup.3]CFU
                                   g/soil

Polluted Soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.1] - SF Soil+FYM             10.04        4.86
[T.sub.2] - SF Soil+FYM+VAM+        5.60         8.04
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.3] - SF Soil +RDF            11.32        4.29
[T.sub.4] - SF Soil+RDF+FYM+        2.98         6.16
  VAM+Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of fresh water

[T.sub.5] - SF Soil+FYM             8.55         6.16
[T.sub.6] - SF Soil+FYM+VAM+        5.85         8.99
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.7] - SF Soil+RDF             4.45         4.14
[T.sub.8] - SF Soil+RDF+FYM+        1.95         7.27
  VAM+Psuedomonas

Unpolluted soil with supply of polluted water

[T.sub.9] - Soil+FYM                5.43         8.34
[T.sub.10] - Soil+FYM+VAM+          2.56         7.88
  Psuedomonas
[T.sub.11] - Soil+RDF               5.85         5.14
[T.sub.12] - Soil+RDF+FYM+          3.41         9.00
  VAM+Psuedomonas
SE m[+ or -]                        0.335        0.580
C.D at 5%                           0.978        1.692
COPYRIGHT 2016 Oriental Scientific Publishing Company
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Rajshekhar, Alavala Uma; Reddy, R. Subhash; Rao, P. Chandrasekhar
Publication:Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology
Article Type:Report
Date:Dec 1, 2016
Words:5398
Previous Article:Cultural, morphological and pathogenic variability in different isolates of Alternaria carthami of safflower from different geographical regions of...
Next Article:Antagonism of Pseudomonas putida against Dematophora nectarix a major apple plant pathogen and its potential use as a biostimulent.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |