Effect Of Bio Fertilizer With Varying Levels Of Mineral Fertilizer On .
Original Research ArticleGalore International Journal of Applied Sciences and HumanitiesVol.3; Issue: 4; Oct.-Dec. 2019Website: www.gijash.comP-ISSN: 2456-8430Effect of Bio Fertilizer With Varying Levels of Mineral Fertilizer on Maize(Zea Mays.L) GrowthTuarira A. Mtaita1, Karen Nyaera2, Moses Mutetwa3, Thomas Masaka41Senior Lecturer and Head Department of Agriculture and Natural Sciences, 2Undergraduate Student,3Postgraduate Africa University Alumni, 4Assistant Lab Technician Africa University,Africa University, Department of Agriculture & Natural Sciences, College of Health, Agriculture and NaturalSciences, Box 1320, Mutare - ZimbabweCorresponding Author: Moses Mutetwa; mosleymute@gmail.comABSTRACTRepeated use of agricultural land over severalyears has created severe reduction of soilfertility and a disproportion in the store ofnutrients available attributable to widening gapbetween nutrient removal and supplier. Biofertilizers have been renowned as alternative toaugment mineral fertilizers to increase soilfertility for crop production in sustainableagriculture. A study was therefore conductedwith the objective to establish optimum levels ofmicrobial fertilizer and mineral fertilizer onsome characteristics of maize plant. Tentreatment levels of varying levels of microbialconsortium bio fertilizer and mineral fertilizercombinations were laid out in a RandomizedComplete Block Design (RCBD) and replicatedthree times. There was significant (P 0.05)degree of influence for application ofcombinations of bio fertilizer with mineralfertilizer at varying levels on plant growthcharacteristics. Stem girth and fresh weight weremaximum at Trt9, plant height was maximum atTrt7, dry weight was maximum at Trt3, and Pcontent and N content was supreme at Trt9 andTrt6 respectively. Further research should becarried out to establish the combination thatprovides the best results for all parameters.Key Words: Microbial consortium bio fertilizer,mineral fertilizers, maize, growth.INTRODUCTIONProviding food security for anincreasing world population under transientclimate conditions has been one of the greatchallenges faced by the agricultural sector.[1-6]With more than seven billion people tofeed, the productive yield of crops needs tobe higher, more sustainable, and moreefficient worldwide. Productivity is not onlythe plant growth per hectare in the field. It isalso defined by the fitness, food production,and healthy development of plants. [7,2] Mostlosses in food production are due to diseasescaused by different pathogens and pests, theeffect of which is augmented by abioticstresses such as heat and drought. Thedegree of dependence on natural resources[8]and the impact of climate change ondrought incidence play a key role inamplifying this challenge. Accordingly,possible global intensifications of droughtconditions is of great concern for anyagricultural area. This is particularly true fortropical developing countries because oftheir high dependence on rain fed systems.[9]Low soil fertility is currently a foodsecurity problem in many developingcountries, particularly in Africa and SouthAsia. [10-12] Africa and South Asia are alsoamong the region’s most at risk of foodinsecurity [11,13,14] and to deteriorating soilhealth due to climate change. [15] Proper soilmanagement has the potential to drasticallyreduce food security issues in these regions.In sub-Saharan Africa, the total NPKrequirement per ha per year range from 24.5to 176 kg NPK/ha. [16] Continuous use ofagricultural land over several years hascreated an imbalance in the store ofnutrients available. Also, increase incropping density and introduction of highGalore International Journal of Applied Sciences and Humanities (www.gijash.com)Vol.3; Issue: 4; October-December 20191
Tuarira A. Mtaita et.al. Effect of Bio Fertilizer With Varying Levels of Mineral Fertilizer on Maize (Zea Mays.L)Growthyielding varieties have caused considerabledrain of nitrogen and crops showed apositive response to the addition of nitrogenin the soil. Serious depletion of soil fertilitydue to widening gap between nutrientremoval and suppliers [17] has affected cropproductivity. However, organic andinorganic fertilizers are the major categoriesof fertilizers used by smallholder farmers.The inorganic fertilizers are in the form ofammonium nitrate, urea, rock phosphate,potassium chloride and potassium sulphate.[18]With the growing environmentalconcerns, the sole dependence on chemicalinput based agriculture is being replaced byintegrated multi- approach involvingconjunctive use of both organic andinorganic sources. According to Remesh, [17]the use of organic manures particularly biofertilizers are the only option to improve thesoil organic carbon for sustenance of soilquality and future productivity. Thisbiotechnology and microbiological scienceproducts such as phyto stimulator, biopesticides and bio fertilizers improve cropnutrient efficiency. [19,20] Bio fertilizers areeco-friendly and supply the nutrient input ofbiological origin for plants. They are notonly important for the reduction of qualitychemical fertilizers but also for providingbetter yield in sustainable agriculture. Biofertilizers have been identified asalternatives to chemical fertilizers toincrease soil fertility for crop production insustainable farming. [21]Biofertilizersimprovenutrientuptake, plant growth and plant tolerance toabiotic and biotic stress. [22,23] With thisview, the objective of this study was todetermine optimum levels of microbialfertilizers and mineral fertilizers on somecharacteristics of maize plant.RESEARCH METHODOLOGYSite DescriptionThe experiment was conducted atAfrica University Farm located at18 53’70.3” South and 32 36’27.9” Eastand at an altitude of 1131m. The meanannual precipitation is approximately 8001000 mm with most of rain falling betweenDecember and February. The averagesummer temperature is 27ºC and wintertemperature is about 7ºC. The soil at AUfarm is a red sandy clay loam, Fersiallitic5E soil under Zimbabwe soil classificationsystem (Nyamapfene, 1991).Experimental Design, Treatments AndEstablishmentThis field experimental study wasconducted to determine the effect of a biofertilizer on growth and development ofmaize crop at varying levels in combinationwith mineral fertilizer. All experimentaltreatments were laid out in a RandomizedComplete Block Design (RCBD) with threereplications. Maize grains were surfacesterilized by immersing in 70% ethanol for2 min and then in 0.2% sodium hypochlorite(NaoCl) for 3 min. Seeds to be washedseveral times with sterile distilled water.The bio fertilizer selected for thisstudy contain Bacillus amyloliquefaciens(Contains at least 1.0 107 colony formingunits per gram dry weight of the us, Lactobacillus acidophillus,Saccharomyces cerevisiae, s earth and organic matterTreatments levels that were applied were as follows;Trt1 - Control (No mineral fert, No biofert)Trt2 - Mineral Fert 100% (Recommended Dose of Fert)Trt3 - Biofert (microbial consortium)Trt4 - Mineral Fert 100% BioFert (microbial consortium) 100%Trt5 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 100%Pre-germinated seeds by soaking for16 hrs were planted at different treatmentTrt6 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 100%Trt7 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 75%Trt8 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 50%Trt9 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 75%Trt10 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 50%level of mineral fertilizer and microbialconsortium bio fertilizer and replicated threeGalore International Journal of Applied Sciences and Humanities (www.gijash.com)Vol.3; Issue: 4; October-December 20192
Tuarira A. Mtaita et.al. Effect of Bio Fertilizer With Varying Levels of Mineral Fertilizer on Maize (Zea Mays.L)Growthtimes. The seeds were sown at 2 to 3 cmdepth. The plots were watered every 72 hrswith equal amount of water. Application ofN:P:K and Bio fertilizer: the full dose ofmineral fertilizer (N:P:K) was applied usingCompound D (7:14:7) at a rate of 15g/plantat the time of planting. Nitrogen as AN wasapplied in three equal splits at 7, 14 and 21days after plant emergence. Bio fertilizermicrobial consortium was applied at a fullrate of 1 g/plant to the soil immediatelybefore planting of the seeds.using a vernier calipers , plant height wasmeasured using a meter rule, fresh weightwas measured using a digital scale and dryweight was determined by oven drying theplant sample at 65 oC and then weighingusing a digital scale. Biochemical Analysisfor total tissue N was determined using theKjeldahl digestion and P concentration inplant extraction according to Kuo, (1996).Statistical Analyses Of ExperimentalDataData collected was statistically analyzedusing the GenStat Analysis of Variance(ANOVA) software and differencesbetween means were determined using theLeast Significant Difference (LSD) test atP 0.05 level.Data collection:Data were collected 60DAP from 5plants. An average was calculated for eachparameter and recorded. The differentparameters such as stem girth was measuredRESULTSStem GirthData pertaining to stem girth was significant (P 0.05) as is shown in Figure 1.30Stem Girthstem thickness t4Trt5Trt6Trt7Trt8Trt9Trt10Treatments*Figures not sharing a common letter differ significantly at 0.05 probability.KeyTrt1 - Control (No mineral fert, No biofert)Trt6 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 100%Trt2 - Mineral Fert 100% (Recommended Dose of Fert)Trt7 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 75%Trt3 - Biofert (microbial consortium)Trt8 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 50%Trt4 - Mineral Fert 100% BioFert (microbial consortium) 100%Trt9 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 75%Trt5 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 100%Trt10 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 50%Figure 1. Effect of bio fertilizer on stem girthAll treatments were numerically higher for stem girth when compared to the control(Trt1). It is interesting to note that all treatments with a combination of mineral fertilizer andbio fertilizer performed significantly (P 0.05) better than recommended dose of mineralfertilizer (Trt2) and 100% microbial consortium (Trt3). The highest stem girth (24.92mm)was recorded for Trt9 followed by Trt6 (23.25mm) which was not significantly (P 0.05)different from Trt9. The mean stem girth recorded was 21.48mm.Plant HeightData for plant height is shown in Figure 2.Galore International Journal of Applied Sciences and Humanities (www.gijash.com)Vol.3; Issue: 4; October-December 20193
Tuarira A. Mtaita et.al. Effect of Bio Fertilizer With Varying Levels of Mineral Fertilizer on Maize (Zea Mays.L)GrowthHeight2bcabcHeight TreatmentTrt7Trt8Trt9Trt10*Figures not sharing a common letter differ significantly at 0.05 probability.Key:Trt1 - Control (No mineral fert, No biofert)Trt6 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 100%Trt2 - Mineral Fert 100% (Recommended Dose of Fert)Trt7 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 75%Trt3 - Biofert (microbial consortium)Trt8 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 50%Trt4 - Mineral Fert 100% BioFert (microbial consortium) 100%Trt9 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 75%Trt5 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 100%Trt10 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 50%Figure 2. Effect of bio fertilizer on plant heightNumerically, all the treatments performedbetter than the control (Trt1). Plant heightfor Trt1 was not significantly (P 0.05)different from that of Trt2, Trt3, Trt8 andTrt9. Also important to note is the resultsfor Trt1 and Trt2 where not significantly(P 0.05) different from each other for plantheight. The tallest plants were recordedfrom Trt7 which were statistically notsignificant (P 0.05) different from Trt4,Trt5, Trt6, Trt8 and Trt10.Figure 3 shows that the results forfresh weight recorded was significantly(P 0.05) different from each other.Numerically, the fresh weights for Trt1 toTrt10 were higher than that recorded for theControl. The highest fresh weight wassignificantly recorded from Trt6, Trt8 andTrt9. Most of the treatments with acombination of mineral fertilizer and biofertilizer produced higher fresh weight thanmineral fertilizer at 100% recommended fulldose. Bio fertilizer alone produced freshweightwhichwashigherthanrecommended full dose of mineral fertilizer.Fresh Weight2.000ababbbabbabab1.500Weight (kgs)Fresh Weightaba1.0000.5000.000Trt1 Trt2 Trt3 Trt4 Trt5 Trt6 Trt7 Trt8 Trt9Figures not sharing a common letter differ significantly at 0.05 probability.TreatmentTrt10Key:Trt1 - Control (No mineral fert, No biofert)Trt6 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 100%Trt2 - Mineral Fert 100% (Recommended Dose of Fert)Trt7 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 75%Trt3 - Biofert (microbial consortium)Trt8 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 50%Trt4 - Mineral Fert 100% BioFert (microbial consortium) 100% Trt9 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 75%Trt5 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 100%Trt10 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 50%Figure 3. Effect of bio fertilizer on fresh weightDry WeightGalore International Journal of Applied Sciences and Humanities (www.gijash.com)Vol.3; Issue: 4; October-December 20194
Tuarira A. Mtaita et.al. Effect of Bio Fertilizer With Varying Levels of Mineral Fertilizer on Maize (Zea Mays.L)Growth0.2500Dry Weightc0.2000abcabWeight (kgs)0.15000.1000abaabcabcabcabab0.05000.0000Trt1 Trt2 Trt3 Trt4 Trt5 Trt6 Trt7 Trt8 Trt9 Trt10Treatment*Figures not sharing a common letter differ significantly at 0.05 probability.Key:Trt1 - Control (No mineral fert, No biofert)Trt6 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 100%Trt2 - Mineral Fert 100% (Recommended Dose of Fert)Trt7 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 75%Trt3 - Biofert (microbial consortium)Trt8 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 50%Trt4 - Mineral Fert 100% BioFert (microbial consortium) 100% Trt9 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 75%Trt5 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 100%Trt10 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 50%Figure 4. Effect of bio fertilizer on dry weightResults pertaining to dry weight are shown in Figure 4. All other treatments performed betterthat the Trt10 and numerically, Trt1 and Trt3 outperformed all the other treatments. Trt3 hadthe highest dry weight. The highest rate of mineral fertilizer and bio fertilizer did not performbetter than treatments where lower application rates were used.Phosphorus Concentration4PhosphorusConcentration 4Trt5 Trt6TreatmentTrt7Trt8Trt9 Trt10*Figures not sharing a common letter differ significantly at 0.05 probability.Key:Trt1 - Control (No mineral fert, No biofert)Trt6 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 100%Trt2 - Mineral Fert 100% (Recommended Dose of Fert)Trt7 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 75%Trt3 - Biofert (microbial consortium)Trt8 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 50%Trt4 - Mineral Fert 100% BioFert (microbial consortium) 100% Trt9 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 75%Trt5 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 100%Trt10 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 50%Figure 5. Effect of bio fertilizer on Phosphorus contentData relating to effect of different treatments on phosphorus (P) level is shown in Figure 5.The highest level of P was recorded from Trt7, Trt9 and Trt10. Results revealed thatgenerally, combinations of both mineral fertilizer and bio fertilizer performed better but not atmaximum rate as seen for Trt4 and Trt5. The mineral fertilizer when applied alone did notproduce any more P% in the plant tissue than when it was applied together with the biofertilizer and vice versa.Nitrogen ConcentrationGalore International Journal of Applied Sciences and Humanities (www.gijash.com)Vol.3; Issue: 4; October-December 20195
Tuarira A. Mtaita et.al. Effect of Bio Fertilizer With Varying Levels of Mineral Fertilizer on Maize (Zea Mays.L)Growth3.50Nitrogen3.00bcNitrogen t1Trt2Trt3Trt4Trt5 Trt6TreatmentTrt9 Trt10*Figures not sharing a common letter differ significantly at 0.05 probability.Key:Trt1 - Control (No mineral fert, No biofert)Trt6 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 100%Trt2 - Mineral Fert 100% (Recommended Dose of Fert)Trt7 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 75%Trt3 - Biofert (microbial consortium)Trt8 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 50%Trt4 - Mineral Fert 100% BioFert (microbial consortium) 100% Trt9 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 75%Trt5 - Mineral Fert 75% BioFert 100%Trt10 - Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 50%Figure 6. Effect of bio fertilizer on Nitrogen contentResults for nitrogen uptake as affected bythe different treatment combination ofmineral fertilizer and bio fertilizer areshown in Figure 6. The control treatmentand Trt3 were not statistically different fromeach other and also recorded the lowestnitrogen content from the plant tissue. Trt6and Trt7 numerically recorded the highesttissue nitrogen content but statistically thesewere not significantly from Trt4, Trt5, Trt8,Trt9 and Trt10. Mineral fertilizer alone orbio fertilizer alone did not produce highertissue nitrogen than when they were appliedin combination at any level.DISCUSSIONThe statistical significant (P 0.05)improvement on all the parameters that weremeasured as a result of the combined effectof mineral fertilizer and bio fertilizer incomparison to control treatment, andtreatments with microbial consortium aloneand recommended dose of mineral fertilizeralone indicates the usefulness of biofertilizers.The considerable improvement inplant growth as a consequence of the biofertilizer, particularly the diatomaceousearth and organic matters component,addition may perhaps have resulted fromsuperior pH, EC and soil fertility leading toenhanced nutrient absorption as reported bysome authors. [24-26] Also, the bio fertilizercould have augmented uptake of mineralnutrients in the plants resulting in morechlorophyll content and carbohydratesynthesis leading to amplified cell divisionand enlargement of the cell size thusresulting in bigger stem girth, height of theplant and fresh weight. The significantimproved aboveground growth as aconsequence of addition of bio fertilizer wasalso reported by Wange & Kale, [27] Prabhuet al. [28] and Anburani & Manivannan. [29]On the other hand, as indicated byMajor et al, [30] improved abovegroundgrowth achieved by the application ofintegrated nutrient management of microbialconsortium bio fertilizer and mineralfertilizers may possibly be by reason ofimproved nutrition associative symbiosisaugmented production of growth hormonesakin to IAA, GA3 and cytokinins andenhanced nutrient availability and uptakethrough the sorptive capacity of the biofertilizer. Comparable findings were alsorecordedbyNanthakumarandVeeraragavathatham, [31] who observedbigger plant growth parameters amidcombined application of inorganic and biofertilizers in brinjal.Increased dry matter in consequenceof nutrient application could be accreditedto a balanced nutrient uptake by plantswhich lead to more cell division andenlargement bringing about shoot growthand development. Improved dry matter maywell also be ascribed to production of plantGalore International Journal of Applied Sciences and Humanities (www.gijash.com)Vol.3; Issue: 4; October-December 20196
Tuarira A. Mtaita et.al. Effect of Bio Fertilizer With Varying Levels of Mineral Fertilizer on Maize (Zea t and accessibility of nutrientswhich sustained the plant vegetativedevelopment.The more tissue nitrogen andphosphorus than control in all the treatmentscould be because of the acquisition oruptake of nitrogen due to long-drawn-outroot surface area through improved rootgrowth and root hair development. [32,33]Organic acid synthesis and exudation [34]might also have improved the expression ofNO3-, NH4 , and PO4- transporters. [33]Milosevic et al. [35] reported that bacterialcount leads to increase in N uptake. Thephosphate-solubilizing Bacillus stimulatesplant growth through enhanced P nutrition[36,37]and increasing the uptake of N, P, Kand Fe. [38] T. harzianum increases thesolubility of P and micronutrients such asZn, Cu, Fe and Mg all plant nutrients withlow solubility [39] and this enhances growthof the roots and the above ground parts ofthe plant. The improved tissue N and Pcould be attributed to T. harzianum since itenhancesmineralnutritionthroughsolubilization and/or uptake of mineralnutrients (e.g. N, P, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu). [40-42]CONCLUSIONThe objective of this study wasaimed determine an optimum level ofapplication of the bio fertilizers withvarying levels of mineral fertilizers in maizeproduction. The study results revealedsignificant improved plant growth as a resultof application of combinations of biofertilizer with mineral fertilizer. There wasvarying degree of influence of biofertiliseron growth parameters; stem girth wasmaximum at Mineral Fert 50% BioFert75%, plant height was maximum at MineralFert 75% BioFert 75%, fresh weight wasmaximum at Mineral Fert 50% BioFert75%, dry weight was maximum at Biofert(microbial consortium) alone, phosphoruscontent was maximum at Mineral Fert 50% BioFert 75%, and nitrogen content wasmaximum at Mineral Fert 50% BioFert100%. Further research should be carriedout to establish the combination thatprovides the best results for all parameters.It would be interesting to see how theinfluence of biofertiliser and differentparameters correlate to final yield.ACKNOWLEDGENTSWe wish to extend many thanks toFarmGreen Fertilizer t/a Jodrell Trading Pvt Ltdfor providing the bio fertilizers for the trial. Theauthors are indebted to the Department ofAgriculture and Natural Sciences for availingthe research site and labor for the trial.REFERENCES1. Rosenzweig, C. and Parry, M.L. (1994).Potential impact of climate change on worldfood supply. Nature, 367, 133-138.2. Edgerton, M.D. (2009). Increasing cropproductivity to meet global needs for feed,food, and fuel. Plant Physiol 149: 7–13.3. Ray, D.K., Gerber, J.S., Macdonald, G.K.and West, P.C. (2015). Climate variationexplains a third of global crop yieldvariability. Nature Communications, 6, 1-9.4. Ray, D.K., Mueller, N.D., West, P.C.,Foley, J.A. (2013). Yield trends areinsufficient to double global cropproduction by 2050. PLoS ONE 8: e66428.5. Beddington, J.R., Asaduzzaman, M., Clark,M.E., Fernandez Bremauntz, A., Guillou,M.D., Howlett, D., Jahn, M.M., Lin, E.,Mamo, T., Negra, C., Nobre, C.A., Scholes,R.J., Van Bo, N., and Wakhungu, J. (2012).What next for agriculture after Durban?.Science, 335, 289-290.6. Challinor, A.J., Watson, J., Lobell, D.B.,Howden, S.M., Smith, D.R. and Chhetri, N.(2014). A meta-analysis of crop yield underclimate change and adaptation. NatureClimate Change, 4, 287-291.7. Boyer, J.S. (1982). Plant productivity andenvironment. Science 218: 443–448.8. Thornton, P.K., Ericksen, P.J., Herrero, M.and Challinor, A.J. (2014). Climatevariability and vulnerability to climatechange:A review. Global Change .12581.9. Rockström, J., Kaumbutho, P., Mwalley, J.,Nzabi, A., Temesgen, M., Mawenya, L.,Barron, J., Mutua, J. & Damgaard-Larsen,S. (2009). Conservation farming strategiesin East and Southern Africa: yields and rainGalore International Journal of Applied Sciences and Humanities (www.gijash.com)Vol.3; Issue: 4; October-December 20197
Tuarira A. Mtaita et.al. Effect of Bio Fertilizer With Varying Levels of Mineral Fertilizer on Maize (Zea r productivity from on-farm actionresearch. Soil and Tillage Research, 103 (1):23-32.St. Clair, S.B.; Lynch, J.P. The opening ofPandora’s Box: Climate change impacts onsoil fertility and crop nutrition in developingcountries. Plant Soil 2010, 335, 101–115.Sanchez, P.A., Swaminathan, M.S. Hungerin Africa: The link between unhealthypeople and unhealthy soils. Lancet 2005,365, 442–444.Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestrationimpacts on global climate change and foodsecurity. Science 304, 1623–1627.Lele, U. Food security for a billion poor.Science 2010, 326, 1554.Huntingford, C.; Lambert, F.H.; Gash,J.H.C.; Taylor, C.M.; Challinor, A.J.Aspects of climate change predictionrelevant to crop productivity. Philos. Trans.R. Soc. B 2005, 360, 1999–2009.Tan, Z., Tieszen, L.L., Liu, S., TachieObeng, E. (2010). Modeling to evaluate theresponse of savanna-derived cropland towarming-drying stress and nitrogenfertilizers. Clim. Change 2010, 100, 703–715.Henao, J., & Baanante, C.A. (1999).Estimating rates of nutrient depletion insoils of agricultural lands of Africa,International Fertiliser Development Center(IFDC). Technical Bulletin. Retrieved fromhttp://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf docs/pnacf868.pdfRemesh, P. (2008),.Organic farmingresearch in M.P. Organic farming in rain fedagriculture: Central Institute from dry Landagriculture, Hyderabad, pp- 13- 17.Morris, M.L., Kelly, V.A., Kopicki, R.J., &Byerlee, D. (2007). Fertiliser use in Africanagriculture: Lessons learned and goodpractice guidelines. Washington, DC: TheWorld Bank. ryya, P., & Jha, D. (2012). Plantgrowth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR):Emergence in agriculture. World Journal ofMicrobiology and Biotechnology, 28(4),1327– ler, D., Bailey, A.S., Tatchell, G.M.,Davidson, G., Greaves, J., & Grant, W.P.(2011). The development, regulation anduse of biopesticides for integrated pestmanagement. Philosophical Transactions ofthe Royal Society B: Biological min, I.S. (1997). Effect of Bio- andChemical fertilization on Growth andProduction of Coriandrum sativum,Foeniculum vulgare and carumcarvi Plants‖Annals Agric Sci. Moshtoho, Egypt, 35(4),2327- 2334.Rai, M.K. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook ofmicrobial biofertilisers. Binghamton, NY:Haworth Press.Banayo, Cruz, Aguilar, Badayos, & Haefele,2012Lehmann, J., Kern, D.C., Glaser, B., andWoods, W.I. (2003). Amazonian DankEarths Origin Properties. Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Solomon, D.,Kinyangi, J., Grossman, J., O’Neil, B.,Skjemstad, J., O., Thies, J., Luizao, F. J.,Peterson, J., and Neves, E. G. (2006). BlackCarbon increases cation exchange capacityin soils, Soil Science Society AmericanJournal, Vol. 70, pp. 1719- 1730.Solomon, D., Lehmann, J., Kinyangi J.,Amelung. W., Lobe, I., Dell A., R. ha, S.,Ngoze S., Verchot, L., Mbugua, D.Skjemstad, J: and Schafer, T., (2007). Longterm impact of anthropogenic perturbationson dynamics and speciation of organiccarbon in tropical forest and subtropicalgrasslandecosystems.GlobalChangeBiology 13, 511- 530.Wange, S.S., and Kale, R.H. (2004). Effectof bio fertilizers under graded nitrogenlevels on brinjal crop. Journal of soils andcrops, 14 (1): 9-11.Prabhu, M., Veeraraghavathatham, D. andSrinivasan, K. (2003). Effect ofnitrogen andphosphorus on growth and yield of brinjalhybrid COBH-1.SouthIndian Horticulture.51(1-6): 152-156.Anburani, A., and Manivannan, K. (2002),Effect of integrated nutrient management ongrowth in brinjal (Solanum melongena) CVAnnamalai South Indian Horticulture 50 (46): 377- 386.Major, J., Steiner, C., Downie, A. andLehmann, J. (2009). Biochar effects onnutrient leaching. In Biochar forenvironmental management : science andtechnology Eds. J. Lehmann and S. Joseph.Earthscan, London ; Sterling, VA, pp. 271287.Galore International Journal of Applied Sciences and Humanities (www.gijash.com)Vol.3; Issue: 4; October-December 20198
Tuarira A. Mtaita et.al. Effect of Bio Fertilizer With Varying Levels of Mineral Fertilizer on Maize (Zea Mays.L)Growth31. Nanthakumar S., and VeeraraghavathathamD., (2000). Effect of integrated nutrientmanagement on growth parameters andyield of brinjal. (Solanum melongena L) CVPLR- 1. South Indian Horticulture 48 (1- 6)31- 35.32. Lynch, J.P and Brown, K.M. (1998).Regulation of root architecture byphosphorus availability. In: Phosphorus inplant biology: Regulatory roles inmolecular,cellular,organsmicandecosystem processes. Lynch. J.P andDeikman, (eds.). American society PlantPhysiology, Rockville, MD. pp. 148-157.33. Gilroy, S. and Jones, D.L. (2000). Throughform to function of Broot hair developmentand nutrient uptake. Trends in Plant Science3: 56-60.34. Marschner, H., Romheld, V., Horst, W.J.and Martin, P. (1986). Root inducedchanges in the rhizosphere: importance formineralnutritionofplants.Zpflanzenernachr Bodenkd.US: 441-456.(Abstracted from HORTCD 1973-1988)35. Milosevic, N., Govedarica, M., Jarak, M.,Bogdanovic, D., Ubavic, M. and Cuvardic,M. (1995). Number of microorganisms anddehydrogenase activity in soils under peas,onion and cabbage. Mikrobiologija 32(2):259-267. (Abstracted from AGRIS 1955-96)36. Elkoca, E., Kantar, F. and Sahin, F. (2008).Influence of nitrogen fixing and phosphatesolubilizing bacteria on nodulation, plantgrowth and yield of chickpea. J. Plant Nutr.,33:157-171.37. Verma, J.P., Yadav, J. and Tiwari, K.N.(2010). Application of Rhizobium sp.BHURC01 and plant growth promoting38.39.40.41.42.rhizobacteria on nodulation, plant biomassand yields of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.).Int.J. Agric. Res., 5:148-156Biswas, J.C., Ladha J.K., Dazzo, F.B.,Yanni, Y.G. and Rolfe, B.g. (2000).Rhizobial inoculation influences seedlingvigor and yield of rice. Agron. J., 92:880886.Altomare, C.; Norvell, W.A.; Bjorkman, T.;Harman, G.E. (1999). Solubilization ofphosphates and micronutrients by plantgrowth promoting and biocontrol fungusTrichoderma harzianum strain 1295-22.Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65, 2926-2933.Harman G. E. (2000). Myths and dogmas ofbiocontrol. Changes in perceptions derivedfrom research on Trichoderma harzianumT-22. Plant Disease 84, 377-393.Yedidia I., Srivastva A.K., Kapulnik Y.,Chet I. (2001). Effect of Trichodermaharzianum on microelement concentrationsand increased growth of cucumber plants.Plant and Soil 235, 235-242.Avis T. J., Gravel V., Antoun H. andTweddell R. J. (2008). anisms on plant health andproductivity. Soil Biology & Biochemistry40, 1733-1740.How to c
Effect of bio fertilizer on stem girth All treatments were numerically higher for stem girth when compared to the control (Trt1). It is interesting to note that all treatments with a combination of mineral fertilizer and bio fertilizer performed significantly (P 0.05) better than recommended dose of mineral
1. Dry fertilizer and its active ingredients are both gravi-metric—in other words, expressed as a weight per area. 2. Liquid fertilizer and its active ingredients are expressed on a volumetric basis and expressed as a volume per area. 3. The key point for the conversion from liquid to dry fertilizer is the density of the liquid fertilizer. 4.
Dawn Roush, Env Mgr 14 Kevin Goodwin, Aqua Bio Spl 13 Bill Keiper, Aqua Bio Spl 13 Sam Noffke, Aqua Bio 12 Lee Schoen, Aqua Bio 11 Elizabeth Stieber, Aqua Bio 11 Kelly Turek, Aqua Bio 12 Chris Vandenberg, EQA 11 Jeff Varricchione, Aqua Bio 12 Matt Wesener, Aqua Bio 11 Marcy Knoll Wilmes, Aqua Bio Spl 13
159386 BIO BIO 301 Biotechnology and Society 158405 BIO BIO 202 Microbiology and Immunology 158396 BIO BIO 304 Ecology of Place 159428 BIO BIO 300 Population, Resources and Environment 159430 BIO ENS 110 Populations, Resources and Environment 151999 ENG ENG 340 Global British Literature
AlphaGuard BIO The AlphaGuard BIO System is a liquid-applied, bio-based, two-component, polyurethane roof restoration system. The development of AlphaGuard BIO is derived from unique bio-based, polyurethane technology. The high bio-content makes for a sustainable, environmentally responsible roofing product while
Bio-Plex Rat Serum Diluent Kit 171-305008 (1 x 96) Bio-Plex rat serum sample diluent 15 ml Bio-Plex rat serum standard diluent 10 ml Catalog # Bio-Plex 200 Suspension Array 171-000201 System or Luminex System* Bio-Plex 200 Suspension Array 171-000205 System With High-Throughput Fluidics
N-stovage in the soil or N- immobilization is the sum of microbiological immobilization and chemical immobilization of N. 2. N-fertilizer productivity is the quantity of dry matter, expressed in g of millet (whole plant), produced per g of fertilizer-N added. 3. Coefficient of actual utilization of fertilizer-N is N-fertilizer absorbed by
setting up a hydroponic fertilizer recipe. While the math itself is pretty straightforward, there are several key points to take into account, including: percent elemental composition of a fertilizer, injector ratios, size of stock tank, and compatibility of fertilizer salts in stock tanks. This alert will cover the basics of
LeveL 2 ANATOmy ANd PhySIOlOgy FOR ExERCISE 74 Section 5 Core and pelvic floor muscles The core The core is traditionally thought of as the area between the pelvis and the rib cage, in particular it refers to the muscles that support, stabilise and move the lumbar region of the spine. Some core muscles cannot be seen, sitting underneath other muscles meaning their functioning is invisible to .
