Printer Friendly

The assessment of rice husk biochar, carpet waste, FYM and PGPR on growth and yield of Mungbean (Vigna radiata L.).

Mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilezek) is the third most important pulse crop cultivated in India covering an area of 2.39 mha, with production of 0.89 million tones and an average productivity of 498 kg [ha.sup.-1] (Anonymous 2015). Mungbean contains about 24 per cent protein, this being about two third of the protein content of soybean, twice that of wheat and thrice that of rice.

Biochar is a carbon rich solid product obtained after heating biomass, such as wood, manure or leaves under limited supply or absence of oxygen (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009). In the recent years, biochar is gaining importance as a good source of amendment because it helps in stabilizing photosynthetic carbon. Since, it has a fantastic quality of absorbance and when applied in soil, it absorbs moisture, plant nutrients and agricultural chemicals, and thereby reduces loss of nutrients through leaching and surface runoff of water. Carpet waste is source of multi nutrient to supply the adequate amount of nutrient. It contents higher amount of nitrogen but phosphorus and potassium have very less amount.

Much of the effects of FYM on soil and crop yield are due to its humus content, which serves as a slow release source of plant nutrient. The efficiency of FYM can be increased by the addition of phosphate fertilizers (Basir et al, 2008). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) represent a wide range of soil bacteria which, when applied in association with a host plant, result in stimulation of plant growth of their host plant (Vessey, 2003).

So waste products like biochar, Carpet etc. become important for improving crop growth and yield which need for evaluation. These discoveries will open new avenues and enhance our understanding which economically solution of limited crop production in different types of soil.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was carried out at the Research Farm, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University and Varanasi. Three replications of each treatment were maintained in the experiment. So there were 27 experimental plots along with three control plots (without any treatment). The experiment was conducted in Randomized Block Design. To determine the initial physico?chemical properties of soil representative soil samples were collected from five different places before conducting the experiment from the depth of 020? cm. The soil belongs to sandy clay loam texture class. The soil had a pH of 7.42, EC 0.170 dS[m.sup.-1] and organic carbon 0.45%. The initial soil was low in available N 258.55 kg [ha.sup.-1], medium in available [P.sub.2][O.sub.5] 14.27 kg [ha.sup.-1] and medium in available [K.sub.2]O 223.45 kg [ha.sup.-1].

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effect on number of nodule per plant

The data pertaining to effect of biochar and PGPR on number of nodules per plant are presented in table 1. It evident from the table that no. of nodule per plant varied from 18.33 to 40. It was higher in treatment [T.sub.10] (BC2+ [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR) followed by [T.sub.9] (BC1+ [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR). Significant differences were found between the treatments after application of PGPR in the plot. The maximum no. of nodule per plant (45) was recorded in the treatment [T.sub.10] (BC2+ [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR) which was 36.37% higher than treatment T5 (BC2+ [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1]). The treatment T7 (BC1+ [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR) was found 27 no. of nodule per plant which was 19.10% higher over the T2 (BC1+ [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1]) and treatment T6 (PGPR) was found 29.13% higher over the T1 (control). However, the treatment T2 (BC1+ [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1]), [T.sub.3] (BC2+ [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1]) and T9 (BC + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR), T10 (BC2+ [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR) were found statically at par to each other. Hamaoui et al. (2001) also reported that inoculation with PGPR significantly enhance nodulation by native Rhizobia in chickpea and faba bean. According to Verma et al., (2010) and Petersen et al., (1996), some PGPR strains from a range of genera, enhance legume growth, nodulation and nitrogen fixation when inoculation of rhizobia. Similar result were obtained by Nishijima et al, (1988) who reported that inoculation of legumes with root colonizing bacteria (PGPR) and Rhizobium affect symbiotic nitrogen fixation by enhancing root nodule number or mass.

Effect on chlorophyll content

Chlorophyll content (SPAD value) in leaf significantly influenced at flowering stage with the application of biochar, carpet waste, FYM and PGPR (table 2). The maximum chlorophyll content (56.50) in leaf was found in treatment [T.sub.10] ([BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR) followed by [T.sub.9] (BC + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR). The minimum chlorophyll content (38.77) was found in treatment T1 (control). The application of biochar and carpet waste in treatment [T.sub.2] ([BC.sub.1] & [CW.sub.1]) increase chlorophyll content 9.62% over the Control, while T6 (PGPR) increased 15.88%, and [T.sub.10] (BC2+ [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1] + PGPR) increased 45.73%. However, the treatment [T.sub.2] (BC+ [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1]), T3 (BC2+ [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1]) and [T.sub.9] (BC1+ [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1]+PGPR), T10 (BC2+ [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR) were found statically at par to each other.

Effect on fresh weight of plants

A critical perusal of the data presented in Table 2 and revealed that a significant increase was found in fresh weight at 45 DAS with the application of BC, CW FYM & PGPR. Application of PGPR and different dose of biochar resulted significant increase in fresh weight (45 DAS). The maximum fresh weight (122.67 g) was noted in T10 ([BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR) and minimum fresh weight (76.33 g) in [T.sub.1] (control) at 45 DAS. The application of biochar and carpet waste in treatment [T.sub.2] ([BC.sub.1] + [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1]) increase fresh weight over 17.47% the control while [T.sub.6] (PGPR) increased 28.82%, [T.sub.4] (BC + [CW.sub.1] + FYMt t [ha.sub.-1]) increased 34.94% and T10 (BC2+ [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR) increased 60.71%. However, the treatment [T.sub.2] ([BC.sub.1] + [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1]), [T.sub.3] ([BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1]) and [T.sub.9] (BC1+ [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR) and [T.sub.10] ([BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR) were found statically at par to each other. PGPR have also been reported to promote plant growth by reducing population of root colonizing phytopathogens (Sindhu et al., 1999, Weller, 2007). Malik et al., (2014) found that Mungbean yield (number of pods, grain and biological yield i.e. fruit + stem) increased by the addition of Rhizobium inoculation.
Details of treatments followed in the plot

Treatments   Details of treatments

[T.sub.1]    Control
[T.sub.2]    Biochar + carpet waste (1+1 t) [ha.sup.-1]
[T.sub.3]    Biochar + carpet waste (2+1 t) [ha.sup.-1]
[T.sub.4]    Biochar + carpet waste+
             FYM (1+1+1 t) [ha.sup.-1]
[T.sub.5]    Biochar + carpet waste +
             FYM (2+1+1 t) [ha.sup.-1]
[T.sub.6]    PGPR
[T.sub.7]    Biochar + carpet waste (1+1 t) [ha.sup.-1]
             + PGPR
[T.sub.8]    Biochar + carpet waste
             (2+1 t) [ha.sup.-1]+ PGPR
[T.sub.9]    Biochar + carpet waste+ FYM
             (1+1+1 t) [ha.sup.-1] + PGPR
[T.sub.10]   Biochar + carpet waste + FYM
             (2+1+1 t) [ha.sup.-1]+ PGPR

PGPR: Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria
(Rhizobiutn + Azotobacter chroococcum HUAZ1?
+P seudomonas fluoreseans BHUPSB06? +
Paenibacillus polymyxa BHUPSB16?)


Effect on dry weight of plants

Application of different BC, CW FYM & PGPR treatments showed a significant impact on dry weight of plants at 45 DAS which was varied from 15.17 to 27.63 g (table 2). Application of PGPR and different dose of biochar resulted significant increase dry weight (45 DAS). The maximum dry weight (27.63 g) was noted in [T.sub.10] ([BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR) and minimum dry weight (15.17g) in [T.sub.1] (control) at 45 DAS. The application of biochar and carpet waste in treatment T2 ([BC.sub.1] + [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1]) increase dry weight over 24.39% the control while T6 (PGPR) increased 34.01%, T4 ([BC.sub.1] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1]) increased 51.15% and [T.sub.10] ([BC.sub.2], [CW.sub.1] [FYM.sub.1] & PGPR) increased 82.13%. However, the treatment [T.sub.2] ([BC.sub.1]+ [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1]), [T.sub.3] ([BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1]) and [T.sub.9] ([BC.sub.1]+ [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1] + PGPR), [T.sub.10] ([BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1] + PGPR) were found statically at par to each other. Findings of Malik et al., (2014) supported such results.

Effect on grain yield of plants at harvest

Grain yield of mungbean significantly increased with the application of graded level BC, CW, FYM & PGPR (table 3). The maximum grain yield (14.56 q [ha.sup.-1]) was recorded in the treatment [T.sub.10] ([BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1] + PGPR) which were 34.44% higher than treatment [T.sub.5] ([BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1]). The treatment [T.sub.10] ([BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1] + PGPR) was found 60.17% higher over the treatment [T.sub.1] (control). The treatment [T.sub.7] ([BC.sub.1]+ [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1] + PGPR) was found 11.19 q [ha.sup.-1] grain yield which was 15.12% higher over the [T.sub.2] ([BC.sub.1] + [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1]) and treatment T6 (PGPR) was found 16.39% higher over the T (control). %. However, the treatment [T.sub.2] (BC + [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1]), [T.sub.3] ([BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1]) and [T.sub.9] ([BC.sub.1] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR), [T.sub.10] ([BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR) were found statically at par to each other.

Ronden et al, (2007) reported that bean yield increased by 46% and biomass production by 3 9% over the control at 60g biochar per kg soil. Similar results were obtained by Hazarika et al., (2000) who inoculated V radiata with Glomus mosseae, G. fasciculatum or Rhizobium, or Rhizobium combined with either of the two Glomus spp, before sowing. All treatments significantly stimulated the growth and straw yield of V radiata. Javaid et al., (2010) reported that FYM, plants coinoculated with B. japonicum and EM exhibited highest and significantly greater shoot biomass, and number and biomass of pods as compared to all other treatments. The present study concludes that soybean yield can be significantly enhanced by the application of B. japonicum and EM in farmyard manure amendment.

Effect on straw yield of plants at harvest

Application of BC2 + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR resulted in significantly higher straw yield by 54.85% then the straw yield obtained from the control treatment (Table 3). The maximum straw yield (61.94q [ha.sub.-1]) was recorded in the treatment [T.sub.10] ([BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR) which were 9.08% higher than treatment [T.sub.5] ([BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1]). The treatment [T.sub.7] ([BC.sub.1]+ [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sub.-1] + PGPR) was found 48.70 q [ha.sup.-1] straw yield which was 9.85% higher over the [T.sub.2] ([BC.sub.1] + [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1]) and treatment [T.sub.6] (PGPR) was found 12.5% higher over the [T.sub.1] (control).

Increase in the chlorophyll content in leaf thus increase the photosynthesis rate and ultimately photosynthetic products so increase biomass of plant. Significant increase in straw yield might be due to the availability of all essential elements to the mungbean crop in sufficient amount by the FYM, carpet waste and PGPR application. Similar results were obtained by Hazarika et al., (2000) who inoculated V. radiata with Glomus mosseae, G. fasciculatum or Rhizobium, or Rhizobium combined with either of the two Glomus spp, before sowing. All treatments significantly stimulated the growth and straw yield of V. radiata.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are thankful to the Head, Department of Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh for providing necessary facilities to conduct this research work.

REFERENCES

(1.) Anonymous. Agricultural Statistics Division, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation. 2011.

(2.) Basir, A., Shah, Z., Naeem, M., Bakht, J. and Khan, Z. H. Effect of phosphorus and farm yard manure on agronomic traits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Sarhad J. Agric, 2009; 24, No. 4.

(3.) Hamaoui, B., Abbadi, J. M., Burdman, S., Rashid, A., Sang, S. and Okon, Y. Effects of inoculation with Azospirillum brasilense on chickpeas (Cicer arietinum) and faba beans (Vicia faba) under different growth conditions. Agronomie, 2001; 21: 553-560.

(4.) Hazarika, D. K., Das, K. K., Dubey, L. N., Phookan, A. K. Effect of Vesicular Arbuscular Mycorrhizal (VAM) fungi and Rhizobium on growth and yield of green gram [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]. Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology, 2000; 30 (3): 424-426.

(5.) Javaid, A. and Mahmood, N. Growth, nodulation and yield response of soybean to biofertilizers and organic manures. P. J. Bot., 2010; 42(2): 863-871.

(6.) Lehmann, J. and Joseph, S. Biochar for Environmental Management: science and technology. Earthscan publications Ltd. United Kingdom, 2009; pp. 1-12.

(7.) Malik, M.M., Akhtar, M.J., Ahmad, I. and Khalid, M. Synergistic use of rhizobium, compost and nitrogen to improve growth and yield of mungbean (Vigna radiata). Pak. J. Agri. Sci, 2014; 51(1), 383-388;

(8.) Nishijima F., Evans, W.R. and Vesper, S.J. Enhanced nodulation of soybean by Bradyrhizobium in the presence of Pseudomonas fluorecens. Plant and Soil, 1988; 111-149.

(9.) Petersen, D. J, Srinivasan, M. and Chanway, C. P. Bacillus polymyxa stimulates increased Rhizobium etli populations and nodulation when coresident in the rhizosphere of Phaseolus vulgaris. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 1996; 142: 271-276.

(10.) Rondon, M., Lehmann, J., Ramirez, J. and Hurtado, M. Biological nitrogen fixation by common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) increases with bio-char additions. Nature Geoscience, 2007; 1: 832-835.

(11.) Rondon, M.A., Lemann, J., Ramirez, J. And Hurtado, M. Biological nitrogen fixation by common beans (Phaseolus valgaris L.) increase with biochar addition. Biol. Fertil. Soi., 2007; 43:699-708.

(12.) Sindhu, S. S., Gupta, S. K. and Dadarwal. K. R. Antagonistic effect of Pseudomonas spp. on pathogenic fungi and enhancement of plant growth in green gram (Vigna radiata).Biology and Fertility of Soils, 1999; 29: 62-68.

(13.) Verma, J. P., Yadav, J. and Tiwari, K. N. Impact of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on crop production. Int. J. of agric. Res., 2010; 5 (11): 954-983,

(14.) Vessey, J. K. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. Plant and Soil, 2003; 255: 571-586

(15.) Weller, D.M. Pseudomonas biological control agents of soil borne pathogens: Looking back over 30 years. Phytopathology, 2007; 97: 250-256.

Shiv Singh Meena, Janardan Yadav, D.K. Singhal, L.K. Jat and Raj Kumar Meena *

Department of Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221 005, India.

(Received: 11 June 2016; accepted: 01 August 2016)

* To whom all correspondence should be addressed.

E-mail: rkm89ssac.bhu@rediffmail.com
Table 1. Effect of biochar, carpet waste, FYM and PGPR consortium
chlorophyll content of mungbean at flowering stage (45 DAS)

               Treatments               chlorophyll     Nodule number
                                          contain       [plant.sup.-1]
                                       [plant.sup.-1]    at flowering
                                        at flowering    stage(45 DAS)
                                       stage (45 DAS)

[T.sub.1]      Control                     38.77            18.33

[T.sub.2]      [BC.sub.1] +                42.50            22.67
               [CW.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.3]      [BC.sub.2] +                44.57            23.00
               [CW.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.4]      [BC.sub.1] +                48.23            27.67
               [CW.sub.1] +
               [FYM.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.5]      [BC.sub.2] +                50.23            29.33
               [CW.sub.1] +
               [FYM.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.6]      PGPR                        44.93            23.67

[T.sub.7]      [BC.sub.1] +                46.50            27.00
               [CW.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1] + PGPR

[T.sub.8]      [BC.sub.2] +                48.13            30.33
               [CW.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1] + PGPR

[T.sub.9]      [BC.sub.1] +                54.07            37.67
               [CW.sub.1] +
               [FYM.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1] + PGPR

[T.sub.10]     [BC.sub.2] +                56.50            40.00
               [CW.sub.1] +
               [FYM.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1] + PGPR

               SEm [+ or -]                 1.93             1.47

               CD at 5%                     5.59             4.26

Table 2. Effect of biochar, carpet waste, FYM and PGPR
consortium on plant1? fresh weight and dry weight
of mungbean at flowering stage (45 DAS)

               Treatments            Weight        [plant.sup.-1]

[T.sub.1]      Control           Fresh (g) 76.33   Dry (g) 15.17

[T.sub.2]      [BC.sub.1] +           89.67            18.87
               [CW.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.3]      [BC.sub.2] +           94.67            19.90
               [CW.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.4]      [BC.sub.1] +          103.00            22.93
               [CW.sub.1] +
               [FYM.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.5]      [BC.sub.2] +          106.33            23.97
               [CW.sub.1] +
               [FYM.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.6]      PGPR                   98.33            20.33

[T.sub.7]      [BC.sub.1] +          105.33            22.90
               [CW.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1] +
               PGPR

[T.sub.8]      [BC.sub.2] +          109.67            23.77
               [CW.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1] +
               PGPR

[T.sub.9]      [BC.sub.1] +          119.33            26.47
               [CW.sub.1] +
               [FYM.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1] +
               PGPR

[T.sub.10]     [BC.sub.2] +          122.67            27.63
               [CW.sub.1] +
               [FYM.sub.1] t
               [ha.sup.-1] +
               PGPR

               SEm [+ or -]           4.696            1.178

               CD at 5%              13.582            3.407

Table 3. Effect of biochar, carpet waste, FYM and PGPR
consortium grain and straw yield of mungbean

                 Treatment

[T.sub.1]        Control
[T.sub.2]        [BC.sub.1] + [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1]
[T.sub.3]        [BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1]
[T.sub.4]        [BC.sub.1] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1]
                   t [ha.sup.-1]
[T.sub.5]        [BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1]
                   t [ha.sup.-1]
[T.sub.6]        PGPR
[T.sub.7]        [BC.sub.1] + [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1]
                   + PGPR
[T.sub.8]        [BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] t [ha.sup.-1]
                   + PGPR
[T.sub.9]        [BC.sub.1] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1]
                   t [ha.sup.-1] + PGPR
[T.sub.10]       [BC.sub.2] + [CW.sub.1] + [FYM.sub.1]
                   t [ha.sup.-1] + PGPR
SEm [+ or -]     0.552
CD at 5%         1.597

                  Grain yield     straw yield
                 q [ha.sup.-1]   q [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.1]            9.09            40.00
[T.sub.2]            9.72            44.33
[T.sub.3]            9.94            46.67
[T.sub.4]            10.53           54.44

[T.sub.5]            10.83           56.78

[T.sub.6]            10.58           45.00
[T.sub.7]            11.19           48.70

[T.sub.8]            12.19           51.45

[T.sub.9]            14.14           58.81

[T.sub.10]           14.56           61.94

SEm [+ or -]         1.484
CD at 5%             4.293
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:Meena, Shiv Singh; Yadav, Janardan; Singhal, D.K.; Jat, L.K.; Meena, Raj Kumar
Publication:Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology
Article Type:Report
Date:Sep 1, 2016
Words:3472
Previous Article:Efficacy of bio-control agents for the management of (Pyricularia grisea) blast disease of finger millet under field condition of Bastar,...
Next Article:Management of black scurf of potato caused by Rhizoctonia solani with organic amendments and their effect on different parameter of potato crop.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters