Research Article, J Soil Sci Plant Health Vol: 2 Issue: 2

Effect of Integrated use of Biofertilizers, Chemical Fertilizers and Farmyard Manure on Soil Health Parameters of Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.)

Rekha DLM^*, Lakshmipathy R and Gopal GA

Department of Agricultural Microbiology, APGC, Lam, Guntur-522034, Andhra Pradesh, India

*Corresponding Author : D. Lasya Mohana Rekha
Department of Agricultural Microbiology, APGC, Lam, Guntur-522034, Andhra Pradesh, India
E-mail: mohanarekha1994@gmail.com

Received: May 23, 2018 Accepted: June 02, 2018 Published: June 20, 2018

Citation: Rekha DLM, Lakshmipathy R, Gopal GA (2018) Effect of Integrated use of Bio-fertilizers, Chemical Fertilizers and Farmyard Manure on Soil Health Parameters of Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.). J Soil Sci Plant Health 2:2.

Abstract

Keywords: Pearl millet; Azospirillum; Azotobacter; PSB; KRB; AM-fungi

Introduction

Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) is widely grown millet and ranks sixth in the world grown [1], especially in drought-prone semiarid regions of Africa and Southeast Asia [2]. It grows on low fertility soil with annual mean rainfall of 200 mm, compared to maize and sorghum which require more rainfall [3]. It requires fewer nutrients but, could produce appreciable yields with adequate nutrients supply [4,5]. India is the largest producer of pearl millet in terms of production (10.05 m t) with an average productivity of 1156kg/ha [6].

It is cultivated on about 30 m ha in more than 30 countries of five continents. India has the largest area (7 million ha) with 9.25 million tons of production, it ranked third after wheat and rice and is grown in Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka [7].

In crop production, nutrient management is an important practice to attain higher yields. Now-a-days, farmers are exuberantly using chemical fertilizers and this is considered as one of the main sources of environmental pollution and also destroys soil health. The continuous use of higher levels of chemical fertilizers by the farmers has led to the problem of soil degradation, which is proving detrimental to crop production in our country. In this context, it is necessary to provide conditions for effective use of natural processes, such as bio fertilization, the process of fixing/mobilizing/solubilizing nutrients through microorganisms [8].

Use of organic sources along with chemical fertilizers not only conserves moisture, reduces erosion and also increases the nutrients use efficiency, thereby improving the overall productivity of soil [9]. Integration of inorganic, organic and bio-fertilizers play a vital role in enhancing crop productivity and sustaining soil fertility, this proves great promise for increasing farmer’s income. Nitrogen fixers and phosphate solubilizers contribute through biological fixation of nitrogen, solubilization of fixed nutrients and enhanced uptake of plant nutrients [10]. Considering all these benefits of bio fertilizers, this study was taken up in bajra to enhance the yield and to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers.

Material and Methods

The pot experiment was carried out to study the effect of inoculation of efficient biofertilizers consortia (Azospirillum + P solubiliser + K solubiliser + VAM) and (Azotobacter + P solubilizer + K solubilizer + VAM) on growth and yield of Pearl millet at. Agricultural Research station, Amaravathi during the year 2016-2017. The biofertilizers used in the two microbial consortia were collected from Agricultural Research station, Amaravathi. These cultures were mixed with recommended dose of FYM and then applied to soil (6 kg pot^-1) filled in the pots prior to application of recommended dose of chemical fertilizers and then sowing was taken up. The experiment was laid out in completely randomized design with thirteen treatments and three replications.

Soil pH

pH of the soils was determined by taking (1:2) soil and water suspension. 10 g of soil was weighed in a beaker, 20 ml of distilled water was added and the contents were stirred with glass rod intermittently, the suspension was allowed to stand for half an hour. The pH was measured by using pH meter.

Electrical conductivity

EC of the soils were determined by taking (1:2) soil and water suspension. 20 g of soil was weighed in a beaker, 40 ml of distilled water was added and stir the contents and allow the soil to settle 15 min. Wash the electrodes carefully and immerse them into soil solution. The EC of the soil suspension was measured by using conductivity bridge and expressed in dSm^-1.

Organic carbon

Soil organic-carbon was estimated following the method described by Walkley et al. [11]. 1 g of soil was placed in a 500 ml conical flask. 10 ml of 1 N Potassium dichromate (K₂Cr₂O₇) solution was pipette into the conical flask. 20 ml of concentrated sulphuric acid was added and the mixture was allowed to stand for 30 min. A blank was also run in the same manner. The contents were then diluted to 200 ml with distilled water. Further 10 ml of 85% Ortho Phosphoric acid and 1ml of Diphenylamine indicator was added to each flask. The solution was titrated with 0.5 N Ferrous sulphate till a turbid blue colour changed to brilliant green. Soil organic carbon was calculated as given below and expressed in per cent.

Available nitrogen (N)

The alkaline potassium permangante method of Subbaiah et al. [12] was followed for the estimation of available N content in soil. 20 g of soil was taken in 800 ml dry Kjeldahl flask and 20 ml of distilled water was added. Then 100 ml of each of 0.32% KMnO₄ and 2.5% NaOH solutions were added. The froth formation during boiling was prevented by adding liquid paraffin (1 ml) and bumping by adding a few glass beads. The contents were distilled in Kjeldahl assembly at a steady rate and liberated ammonia was collected in a conical flask (250 ml) containing 20 ml of boric acid solution (with mixed indicator). The pink color of the Boric acid solution turns to green with the absorption of ammonia. 150 ml of distillate collected in about 30 min was titrated with 0.02 N H₂SO₄ till the original shade (Pinkish) was obtained. Blank was performed without soil.

Available phosphorous (P)

Available P in soil was determined by Olsen’s method described by Olsen et al. [13]. 2.5 g air dried soil was placed into a 250 ml conical flask and add a pinch of Darco charcoal and 50 ml of Sodium bicarbonate extractant (0.5 M) was added. Then the contents were shaken for 30 minutes and filtered through Whatman No1 filter paper, 5 ml of clear and colorless filtrate was transferred into a 25 ml volumetric flask, 2-3 drops of p-nitrophenol was added, it turns to yellow colour. Then the filtrate was titrated with 5 N H₂SO₄ drop by drop till yellow colour disappears, To this 5 ml of Olsen’s extract solution was added then diluted up to 20 ml with distilled water. Then 4 ml of Ascarbic acid was added and volume was made up to 25 ml and shaken well. After 5 min and the intensity of the blue colour developed was measured using 660 nm, blank was run without soil, and standard curve of P was plotted. Available P was expressed in Kg ha^-1.

Available potassium (K)

Available potassium content from soil was extracted by using 1 N NH₄OAC. The concentration of potassium in the extract ant was determined by flame photometer.

Results and Discussion

In the present study, different combinations of bio fertilizer, FYM and chemical fertilizers resulted in a highest nutrient status in the soil (Table 1). The available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content of the soil were maximum during flowering stage compared to initial and harvesting stage in all the treatments. At flowering, the highest available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (163.07 kg h^-1, 43.04 kg h^-1 and 299.26 kg h^-1) were recorded in the treatment T11 (MC1 + 75% RDF + FYM) and lowest available nitrogen (132.85 kg h^-1) in the treatment T6 (MC2 + 50% RDF), lowest available P (25.45 kg h^-1) in the treatment T13 (100% RDF) and K (257.72 kg h^-1) recorded in the treatment T2 (MC2). At the time of crop harvest, the highest available N, P and K (147.98 kg h^-1, 38.09 kg h^-1 and 288.87 kg h^-1) were recorded in the treatment T11 (MC1 + 75% RDF + FYM) and lowest available N (100.35kg ha^-1) in the treatment T2 (MC2) and lowest P and K (21.67 kg h^-1 and 245.53 kg h^-1) recorded in the treatment T13 (100% RDF).

Table 1: Influence of bio fertilizers consortium on Available N, P and K in pearl millet rhizospheric soil.

Similar results were observed by Yuvaraj [14] who reported that combined application of inorganic fertilizers and consortia bio fertilizers increased the available nitrogen in soil. The important characteristic of Azospirillum and Azotobacter is that they excrete ammonia into the rhizosphere in the presence of root exudates. The similar findings were also reported by Narula et al. [15] and Wua et al. [16]. The enhanced availability of nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil was recorded with the inoculation of Azospirillum and phosphobacteria [17,18].

Application of biofertilizer with FYM and chemical fertilizer can play an important role in improving P bioavailability. The increase in soil P content might be due to the P-solubilizing potential of the isolates used in biofertilizer. This might attribute to the production of organic acids, chelating Oxo-acids and solubilization of inorganic insoluble phosphates by microorganisms. Similar findings were reported earlier by Molla et al. [19] and Gupta et al. [20].

The application of consortia of bio fertilizers, FYM and inorganic fertilizers increased the available potassium content in soil. This may be due to the presence of potash releasing bacteria in the biofertilizer consortia applied to the soil which in turn released soluble potassium from potassium-bearing minerals. The mechanism of potassium release from potash bearing minerals is by the production of organic acids, which quickly dissolves rock and chelate silicon ions, this leads to releasing K ions into the soil [21].

The soil organic carbon content of the soil was maximum during flowering stage compared to initial and harvesting stage in all the treatments. The soil organic carbon at flowering was observed to be maximum (0.51%) in the treatment T3 (MC1 + FYM) and least (0.40%) in the treatments T2 (MC2) and T13 (100% RDF). At the time of crop harvest, highest soil organic carbon (0.436%) was recorded in the treatment T3 (MC1 + FYM) and lowest (0.37%) in the treatment T13 (100% RDF). Das et al. [22] reported that manure application with PGPR showed higher organic carbon in soil as compared to the sole application of manures. FYM + PGPR treated soils showed highest organic carbon in the soil.

The pH and EC of the soil was maximum during harvesting stage compared to initial and flowering stage in all the treatments. The highest soil pH (7.96) was recorded in the treatments T13 (100% RDF), T6 (MC2+50% RDF), T10 (MC2+75% RDF) and lowest (7.80) in the treatment T1 (MC1) at flowering. The soil pH at the time of harvest was recorded to be maximum (8.05) in the treatment T13 (100% RDF) and lowest (7.83) in the treatment T3 (MC1 + FYM). At flowering the highest electrical conductivity (0.29 dSm^-1) was recorded in the treatment T4 (MC2 + FYM) and lowest (0.20 dSm^-1) in the treatment T13 (100% RDF). Highest soil EC (0.34 dSm^-1) at the time of harvest was recorded in the treatment T4 (MC2 + FYM) and lowest (0.25 dSm^-1) in the treatment T5 (MC1 + 50% RDF) (Table 2).

Table 2: Influence of bio fertilizers consortium on soil organic carbon, pH and EC.

These results are in accordance to the results of Patel et al. [23] and Lin et al. [24]. They showed that microbe’s lower the soil pH by releasing of organic acids might get nullified with the presence or application of chemical fertilizers. Selvakumar et al. [25] reported that application of bio fertilizers with FYM increased the soil EC. This may be due to increased solubility of many nutrients.

Conclusion

From the present study it is concluded that integrated application of bio fertilizer consortium along with organic and inorganic fertilizers significantly improved the soil nutrient status of pearl millet rhizosphere. The superior treatment was MC1+75% RDF + FYM.

References

1. Singh R, Singh DP, Tyagi PK (2003) Effect of Azotobacter, farmyard manure and nitrogen fertilization on productivity of pearl millet hybrids (Pennisetum glaucum (L) R. Br) in semi-arid tropical environment. J Am Geriatrics Society 49: 21-24.
2. Baltensperger DD (2002) Progress with proso, pearl and other millets. Trends in New Crops and New Uses. ASHA Press, Alexandria, Egypt.
3. Ali EA (2010) Grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency of pearl millet as affected by plant density, nitrogen rate and splitting in sandy soil. American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences 7: 327-335.
4. Bationo A, Mokwunye AU (1991) Role of manures and crop residue in alleviating soil fertility constraints to crop production: with special reference to sahelian and sudanian zones of West Africa. Fertility Resource 29: 117-125.
5. Maman N, Mason SC, Sirifi S (2000) Influence of variety and management level on pearl millet production in niger grain yield and dry matter accumulation. Africa Crop Sci J 8: 25-34.
6. Bhardwaj V, Omanwar PK (2014) Long term effect of continuous rotational cropping and fertilization on crop yields and soil properties II. Effects on EC, pH, organic matter and available nutrient of soil. J Indian Society of the Soil Sci 42: 387-392.
7. AICRP (2015) Project Coordinator Review, Annual Workshop of All India Co-ordinated Millet Improvement Project, held at TNAU, Coimbatore on 23-25 April, 2015.
8. Astarai A, Koocheki A (1996) Application of bio fertilizers in sustainable agriculture. Mashhad Jahad Daneshgahi Publications, Iran.
9. Sinha BL, Chauhan SK, Pradhan MK (2011) Effect of tillage and nitrogen on growth and yield of pearl mlillet under rainfed conditions. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation 39: 220-225.
10. Mane SS, Hadgaonkar AK, Suryawanshi AP, Salunke SD (2000) Response of pearlmillet to inoculation of phosphorus solubilizing bacteria and Azospirillum. J Indian Society Soil Sci 48: 617-619.
11. Walkley A, Black CA (1934) an examination of different methods for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modifications of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37: 29-38.
12. Subbaiah BV, Asija GL (1956) A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Current science 25: 259-260.
13. Olsen SR, Cole CS, Watanable FS, Dean LA (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA, Washington, USA.
14. Yuvaraj K (2016) Effect of biofertilizers and inorganic fertilizers on soil health, growth and yield of rice (Oryza sativa L.). MSc Thesis, College of Basic Science and Humanities. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.
15. Narula N, Gupta KG (1986) Ammonia excretion by Azotobacter chroococcum in liquid culture and soil in the presence of manganese and clay minerals. Plant and Soil 93: 205-09.
16. Wua SC, Caob ZH, Lib ZG, Cheunga KC, Wonga MH (2004) Effects of biofertilizer containing N-fixer, P and K solubilizers and AM fungi on maize growth: a greenhouse trial. Geoderma 125: 155-166.
17. Copper R (1979) Bacterial fertilizers in the Soviet Unions. Soil Fertility 22: 327-233.
18. Ram M, Dawari R, Sharma N (2011) Effect of organic manures on basmati rice (Oryza sativa L.) under organic forming of rice-wheat cropping system. Int J Agri Crop Sci 3: 76-84.
19. Molla MA, Chaudhry A (1984) Microbial mineralization of organic phosphate in soil. Plant and Soil 78: 393-399.
20. Gupta R, Singal R, Shankar A, Kuhad RC, Saxena RK (1994) A modified plate assay for screening phosphate solubilizing microorganisms. J General and Applied Microbiol 4: 255-260.
21. Bennett PC, Choi WJ, Rogera JR (1998) Microbial destruction of feldspars. Mineral Management 8: 149-150.
22. Das I, Singh AP (2014) Effect of PGPR and organic manures on soil properties of organically cultivated mungbean. An Int Quarterly J Life Sci 9: 27-29.
23. Patel N, Patel Y, Mankad A (2014) Bio fertilizer: A promising tool for sustainable farming. International J Innovative Res Sci, Engineer and Technol 3: 56-69.
24. Lin TF, Huang HI, Shen FT, Young C (2006) The protons of gluconic acid are the major factor responsible for the dissolution of tricalcium phosphate by Burkholderia cepacia CC-A174. Bioresource Technology 97: 957-60.
25. Selvakumar G, Reetha S, Thamizhiniyan P (2012) Response of biofertilizers on the growth and yield of blackgram (Vigna mungo L.). World Applied Sci 16: 1368-1374.