Agricultural Science Digest

  • Chief EditorArvind kumar

  • Print ISSN 0253-150X

  • Online ISSN 0976-0547

  • NAAS Rating 5.52

  • SJR 0.156

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Review Article

Agricultural Science Digest, volume 44 issue 5 (october 2024) : 797-805

Potential of Biofertilizers in Sustaining the Productivity of Forage Crops: A Review

Naveen Kumar1,*, Shwetansh2, Sunil Kumar1, Deeksha Thakur1, Mridula1
1Department of Agronomy, CSK HP Agricultural University, Palampur-176 062, Himachal Pradesh India.
2Department of Agronomy, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa-110 012, New Delhi, India.
Cite article:- Kumar Naveen, Shwetansh, Kumar Sunil, Thakur Deeksha, Mridula (2024). Potential of Biofertilizers in Sustaining the Productivity of Forage Crops: A Review . Agricultural Science Digest. 44(5): 797-805. doi: 10.18805/ag.D-5982.

ABSTRACT

The most important constraint limiting crop productivity in many parts of the world and especially among resource-poor farmers, is poor soil fertility. Maintenance of soil quality on sustainable bases can reduce the problems of soil degradation, decreasing soil fertility and rapidly declining factor productivity, a common concern in large parts of the world in today’s agriculture production systems. Minerals, organic manures and microorganisms are three major components contributing for sustaining soil fertility and productivity. Among these, biofertilizers are the products containing different beneficial microorganisms which helpto meet the nutritional requirement of crops with minimum investments. Forages are least priority crops with many farmers. Thus, biofertilizers can be an important source to meet out the nutritional requirement of forage crops which are grown with minimum input supply. Commonly used bio-agents are nitrogen fixers, phosphorus and potassium solubilizers. Biofertilizers would play key role in maintaining soil productivity on sustainable basis and also in protecting the environment as eco-friendly and cost-effective inputs. Biofertilizers can improve productivity in a relatively short time, consume smaller amounts of energy and promote antagonism and biological control of phytopathogenic organisms.

INTRODUCTION

Rural economy of many developing countries in the world is agrarian based. The livelihood of resources poor farmers is supported by agriculture and animal husbandry. Country like India occupy about 2 per cent of the total world’s geographical area and sustains livestock population of 536.76 million (Anonymous, 2022). In recent years the growth of human and livestock population has posed a tremendous pressure on land resources. Indian agriculture is oriented towards mixed farming in which role of livestock form an integral part of rural India. Livestock productivity in India is far below the desired level due to considerable gap between the requirement and availability of quality fodder.
           
At present, the country is facing a deficit of 11.24 per cent in green fodder, 23.4 per centin dry fodder and 28.9 per cent in concentrates (Roy et al., 2019).The regional deficits are more important than the national deficit, especially for fodder which is not economical to transport over long distances. The pattern of green and dry fodder deficit/surplus varies in different parts of the country. In India, Union territories face a deficit of 76.2 per cent, North East zone of 23.1 per cent, East zone of 41.2 per cent, Hill zone of 24.9 per cent, the North zone experiences an overall surplus of 133.05 per cent, West zone faces a modest deficit of 6.3 per cent, the Central zone faces a deficit of 4.8 per cent and the South zone faces a significant deficit of 43.9 per cent in green fodder. Among the dry fodder availability, Union territories face a deficit of 59.1 per cent, North East zone experiences an overall surplus of 14.0 per cent, East zone faces an overall deficit of 43.9 per cent, West zone of 43.5 per cent, Central zone of 16.4 per cent, in Hill zone there exists an overall surplus of 55.9 per cent, in North Zone faces an overall surplus of 31.7 per cent and an overall deficit of 27.0 per cent in South zone (Roy et al., 2019).
           
Sufficiency of nutrients to forage crops is vital for ensuring higher crop productivity and better animal nutrition. Forage plants, especially the high biomass producing perennial ones, are heavy feeders of plant nutrients and remove large amount of nutrients from soil. Perennial grasses have been found to remove 9.4, 1.45, 14.2, 4.6, 2.65 and 1.95 kg N, P, K, Ca, Mg and S, respectively for each tonne of dry matter produced (Hazra, 1994). Development of a manageable association between different forage crops (Table 1) and beneficial organisms would greatly increase forage production efficiency.
 

Table1: Important annual and perennial forage species.


 
Biofertilizers
 
Biofertilizers, more commonly known as microbial inoculants, are artificially multiplied cultures of certain soil organisms that can improve soil fertility and crop productivity. Although the beneficial effects of legumes in improving soil fertility was known since ages and their role in biological nitrogen fixation was discovered more than a century ago. Biofertilizers has a potential to substitute the quantum of organic and inorganic source of nutrients in agricultural production systems. Bio-fertilizer contains microorganisms which promote the adequate supply of nutrients to the host plants and ensure proper growth by regulating plant physiology. Living microorganisms are used in the preparation of bio-fertilizers. Microorganisms which have specific functions to enhance plant growth and development and make the nutrients available to the plants are used as bioagents for the preparation of biofertilisers. Presence of various N fixers in the rhizosphere of different grasses has been documented by Hazra in 1994 (Table 2). Biofertilizers play a significant role in improving the soil fertility and plant growth by fixing atmospheric nitrogen through symbiotic and non-symbiotic association, solubilising insoluble soil phosphates and also producing plant growth stimulating substances.
 

Table 2: Important nitrogen fixing bacteria observed in the rhizosphere of grasses.


 
Microorganisms as biofertilizers
 
Organisms that are commonly used as biofertilizers are nitrogen fixers (N-fixer), phosphorus solubilizer and potassium solubilizer as sole culture as well in combination with few moulds or fungi (Table 3). Most of the bacteria used in biofertilizer have close relationship with plants and these bacteria possess ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen (Table 4).
 

Table 3: Different types of microbial biofertilizers.


 

Table 4: Amount of nitrogen fixed by different microbial strains.


 
Rhizobia
 
Rhizobia are a group of symbiotic nitrogen-fixing (SNF) bacteria that have the capability to form nodules on the roots and in certain instances, on the stems of their host plants in particular of legumes. The symbiotic relationship between rhizobia and host plants is mutually beneficial, in which both bacteria and host plants are benefitted (Sprent, 2008). Legumes host rhizobia and supply them with carbon and energy sources, while in return, these plants receive ammonia from the rhizobia (Lindstrom and Mousavi, 2020). Through symbiosis, atmospheric nitrogen is converted into a form that can be easily assimilated by the host plants (Gothwal et al., 2007). The specificity of this symbiosis varies among different Rhizobium strains and legume species. To better understand the compatibility between rhizobium and legume hosts, scientist have categorised them into cross-inoculation groups. These groups consist of legume species that can share compatible rhizobium strains, meaning they can develop nodules when inoculated with bacteria from any member of the same group. The concept of cross inoculation groups helps streamline the selection of appropriate rhizobium strains for legume crops, optimizing nitrogen fixation and overall plant productivity. Cross-inoculation groups of rhizobium are pivotal in agricultural practices, aiding in the selection of optimal strains for inoculating specific legume crops. These groups categorize rhizobium strains based on their compatibility with particular legume hosts. For example, R. japonicum adept at nodulating and fixing nitrogen in soybeans, whereas, R. leguminosarum exhibits greater efficacy with peas or clover (Table5).
 

Table 5: Rhizobia and the cross-inoculation groups of legumes.


               
Nitrogen-fixing bacteria (NFB) transform inert atmospheric N2 to ammonia through their biological processes, and this reaction is catalysed by the oxygen-sensitive enzyme nitrogenase, present in the bacteria (Bakulin et al., 2007; Maitra et al., 2023). Rhizobium inoculation is a well-known agronomic practice to ensure adequate N supply for legumes with an objective to minimize inorganic nitrogen requirement. In plant root nodules, the O2 level is regulated by special haemoglobin called leg haemoglobin. This globin protein is encoded by plant genes but the haem co-factor is produced by the symbiotic bacteria upon infection of the plant with Rhizobium. The process of nitrogen fixation does indeed require specialized cells with organelles containing cytoplasmic compartments known as symbiosomes. Within these symbiosomes, rhizobia ultimately differentiate into a specialized cell type called bacteroids, which then fix atmospheric nitrogen for the plant in exchange for sugars (Kumar et al., 2020).
               
Recent studies have revealed that rhizobia beyond their symbiotic association with leguminous plants also function as endophytes and enhanced the growth and productivity of various plants through multiple processes such as solubilization of inorganic compounds and phytohormone production (Gopalkrishnan et al., 2015). Long term studies under ICAR-All India Coordinated Research Project (Forage Crops) on inoculation of Rhizobiumin diverse cultivated fodder legumes, pasture legumes and shrubs, indicated increase in green fodder yield of cultivated forage legumes to the tune of 10 to 28 per cent, whereas, the magnitude of increase in pasture legumes and shrubs was 11to 31 per cent over non-inoculated control (Table 6). Rhizobium inoculation demonstrated a favourable response in yield of multi-cut species like alfalfa, Egyptian clover and Persian clover compared to single cut species. Among perennial species butterfly pea, Stylosanthes and Centro showed better response to Rhizobium inoculation (Hazra, 1994). However, Rhizobium inoculation had positive effect on the growth and yield of cowpea in clay loam soil of Ankara (Turkey) with appreciable economization of inorganic nitrogen application (Albayrak et al., 2006).
 

Table 6: Effect of Rhizobium inoculation on productivity of important forage species.


               
Under prevailing ecological challenges of climate change and environmental degradation due to excessive use of chemical fertilizers the rhizobium inoculation of alfalfa seed along with application of poultry manure, rock phosphate and phosphobacteriaenhanced the herbage yield appreciably vis-à-vis mitigated the adverse effects of inorganic fertilizers on the soil health (Bama, 2016).
               
Bio-inoculants had favourable effects on the growth, development, yield attributes and yield of fodder crops by enhancing the availability of nutrients to the crops. This has been very well demonstrated by Dahiya et al., (2019) and Ijaz et al., (2019)when appreciable increase in fodder yield of Egyptian clover was observed with the application of Rhizobium + PSB. Various studies have established the positive effects of bio-inoculants on soil health. In zero tilled soils Rhizobium inoculation of cowpea improved soil health, fodder yield and minimise the dose of inorganic nitrogen up to 25 per cent (Mallikarjun et al., 2022). In sandy loam soils rhizobium inoculation of cowpea had notable response of plants to inoculation owing to better nodule development, increased nitrogen fixation and improved yield. Although, Rhizobium inoculation had favourable effect on crop yield but studies have also established the positive role of inoculation on protein, total phenolic, chlorophyll and beta carotene contents in cowpea (Kandil and Unlu, 2023).
 
Phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB)
 
Phosphorous is one of the most prevalent elements in the crust of the earth and can be found in both inorganic and organic forms in soils (Gyaneshwar et al., 2002). Plants absorb it in the inorganic form i.e. orthophosphate (H2PO4- and HPO42-)(Hinsinger, 2001). Phosphorous nutrition plays a crucial role in photosynthesis, energy transfer, signal transduction, nitrogen fixation in legumes, crop quality, and resistance to plant diseases(Khan et al., 2014). Acidic soils of tropical and subtropical regions are severely deficient in phosphorus, with significant capacities for phosphorus sorption. Phosphorus is only present in micromolar or lower proportions in soil solution, although the majority of mineral nutrients are often present in millimolar amounts (Ozanne, 1980). The strong reactivity of soluble phosphate with aluminium ions in acidic soil and calcium ions in alkaline soils is the cause of the low phosphorus availability. Many heterotrophic microbes released organic acids that solubilize P, chelate cationic companions of P ions and release the P directly into solution (Ingle and Padole, 2017). PSB constitute 1 to 50% of the total microbial population in soil, whereas Penicillium, Aspergillus, Rhizoctonia solani, and Trichoderma, make up only 0.1 to 0.5% of the P solubilization potential (Chen et al., 2006). PSB inoculation of maize seed increased the green fodder yield, dry fodder matter yield, crude protein and crude fibre content by 3.67%, 5.4%, 7.1 % and 2.1%, respectively, over uninoculated check (Ayub et al., 2014) (Table 7).
 

Table 7: Effect of phosphorous and microbial inoculation on yield attributes of maize fodder.


 
               
Microbes affect soil fertility by mineralization, decomposition and conversion of P from inorganic form to its accessible forms.PSB + Trichoderma with 50% recommended dose of fertilisers and 10tFYM/ha increased fodder yield of oat, economise inorganic fertilisers doses due to rapid decomposition of organic matter, higher availability of nutrients, increased availability of phosphorus due to mineralisation and prevention of crop from seed borne diseases (Singh et al., 2015).In sandy loam soils of Ranchi (Chhattisgarh), application of 75% of recommended fertilizer (RDF) along with Azotobacter and PSB was as efficient in promoting growth and yield of oat crop as of 100 per cent recommended dose of fertilizer (Kumar and Karmarkar, 2015). PSB inoculation in lablab bean (Lablab purpureus Linn.) sown in sole stand or in combination with cenchrus grass (Cenchrus setigerus, Vahl.) enhanced fodder yield and crude protein content owing to mineralisation of fixed phosphorus by P solubilising micro-organisms and make it available to crop plants (Sharma et al., 2015).
 
Vesicular Arbuscular Mycorrhiza (VAM)
 
Among various bio-agents, vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza is recognised for its ability to accelerate physiological activities that enhance the growth and health of plants (Johansson et al., 2004). Vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza exhibits a symbiotic relationship between fungi and the roots of higher plants. These fungi colonize near plant roots forming a network of hyphae that extends into the soil, increasing the root length, thereby enhancing water uptake and nutrient absorption by the plants. It is believed that Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) have the potential to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers up to 50 per cent and achieving optimal crop production (Begum et al., 2019).
               
VAM enhances nutrient uptake, improves tolerance to drought and salinity and also regulates plants defence mechanism (Hause et al., 2007). VAM also stimulates plant growth through physiological effects or by mitigating the severity of diseases caused by soil pathogens (Gupta, 2004). Mycorrhizal fungi play crucial role in enhancing forage production and restoring soil fertility. Early studies indicated that mycorrhizal association increased the herbage yield of guinea grass by 24 per cent under hot and dry weather conditions of Bundelkhand region of India (Hazra, 1994).VAM inoculation also hold very good potential in tropical environment of coastal region of India which was evident from vigorous growth and higher forage yield of guinea grass (George et al., 1998).
               
In nutrient-deficient soils, mycorrhizal association play a vital role in plant nutrition due to their ability to absorb nutrients and in particular of phosphorus from the soil, consequently decreasing the reliance on expensive phosphatic fertilizers. Several fodder crops underwent testing with mycorrhizal association, demonstrated an increase in fodder yield of 5 to 18 per cent in annual fodder legumes, 3 to 5 per cent in annual cultivated cereal fodders, 13-33 per cent in perennial range legumes and 8-12 per cent in perennial grasses (Table 8). VAM has also been reported to have synergistic effect with other bioagents. In sandy loam soils dual inoculation of Rhizobium and AM fungi significantly enhanced the nodulation, nodule biomass and fodder production in Stylosanthes species. Furthermore, the treated plants had elevated levels of crude protein and total digestible nutrients, alongside reduced neutral detergent fibre and acid detergent fibre contents (Mishra et al., 2009).
 

Table 8: Effect of VAM inoculation on some selected forage crops in red soils.


 
Azotobacter
 
Azotobacter is a group of Gram negative, free-living, nitrogen fixing aerobic bacteria inhabiting in the soil capable of fixing an average of 20 kg N/ha per year (Gandora et al., 1998). In 1901, the Dutch botanist and microbiologist Beijerinck made the discovery of the Azotobacter genus. These bacteria utilize atmospheric nitrogen to fuel the synthesis of their cellular proteins, which gets mineralized in the soil and increase the availability of nitrogen to crop plants. They have positive effects on crop growth and yield through the development of phytopathogenic inhibitors, rhizospheric microbial induction, modification of nutrient uptake, and ultimately enhancement of biological nitrogen fixation. Besides, nitrogen fixation, Azotobacter also produces various growth hormones like, riboflavin, indol acetic acid and gibberalin (Jnawali et al., 2015).
               
In sandy loam soils ecosystem, integrated use of organic and inorganic sources of nutrients with biofertilizer resulted in significantly higher green fodder yield of maize over organic and inorganic treatments owing to the higher availability of nutrients indicating beneficial effect of Azotobacter owing to its ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen also helps to enhance nutrients availability in the root zone during the early growth stages of the crop. Use of Azotobacter culture in integration with inorganics and organics had more pronounced effects on the growth and fodder yields of the crops (Kumar et al., 2016). Seed inoculation with Azotobacter also indicated complimentary effects with micro-nutrients application on the productivity of crops. Foliar application of ZnSO4   @ 1% at 20 and 40 DAS + inoculation of seeds with Azotobacter significantly improved the productivity of maize over no inoculation. (Tejaswi et al., 2021). Studies have also established the beneficial effect of Azotobacter on the quality constituents like crude protein, acid detergent fibre and neutral detergent fibre contents of fodder crops. Crude protein content is an important constituent in forages and acts as an indicator of quality of fodder produced by different crops (Aseefa and Ledin, 2001). Azotobacter also established its superiority in fodder maize crop grown with recommended primary and micro-nutrient application. Crude protein an important constituent in forages acts as an indicator of quality of fodder. Higher crude protein indicates better quality of the fodder. Acid Detergent Fibre (ADF) and Neutral Detergent Fibre (NDF) represent the fibre constituents in the forage and govern the digestibility and intake potential, respectively (Zhang et al., 2022). Studies have reported beneficial effect of Azotobacter biofertilizers on crude protein, acid detergent fibre and neutral detergent fibre contents of fodder crops. In sandy soils Azotobacter also hold its potential for the improvement of herbage quality constituents. Better dry matter and crude protein yields of oat were obtained in sandy soils with Azotobacter inoculation by Sharma (2009). Nitrogen fixation and phosphorus mobilization by Azotobacter and PSB, respectively improved input use efficiency of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus sources in fodder crops like oats and sorghum. Studies advocated the substitution of about 25 % recommended doses of nitrogen in forages by Azotobacter which resulted in better economic returns and economic efficiency of production systems (Patel et al., 2018).
 

Table 9: Green fodder yield of Pennisetum hybrid as influenced by nitrogen and Azospirillum strains.


 
Azospirillum
 
Azospirillum is the foremost common plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, generally associated with grasses and other crops like rice, wheat and sugarcane etc. (Suhameena et al., 2020). This bacterium is rod-shaped, gram-negative and aerophilic. Azospirillum fix the atmospheric nitrogen in the rhizosphere but also known to promote plant growth by enhancing plant root growth, uptake of water and nutrients by plants, due to the production of phytohormones, polyamine and trehalose. The efficiency of Azospirillum effect on plant growth and development under varied conditions depends on soil and climatic conditions. Beneficial effects of Azospirillum have been obtained consistently in variety of crops. After the discovery the diazotrophic behaviour of Azospirillum, several studies have established its capacity to fix N2 and to replace N-fertilizers requirement when associated with grasses and cereals like paddy, wheat and sugarcane. Some Azospirillum strains can solubilize inorganic phosphorus, making it more readily available to the plants and resulting in higher yields and another important feature of Azospirillum is related to biological control of plant pathogens. 
               
The potential effect of Azospirillum on crop productivity depends on the strain specificity used in a particular crop. Variable response of Azospirillum strains on the green fodder yield (Table 9) of Pennisetum trispecific hybrid (P. typoides × P. purpureum  × P. squmulatum) in sandy loam soil was observed by Ramamurthy (2002).
               
Under integrated nutrient management system, Azospirillum inoculation maintained its significant superiority over no inoculation in terms of crop yield (Patil, 2014). Complimentary effects of Azospirillum with Azotobacter as well with PSB on yield attributes viz. plant height, number of leaves, leaf area index and leaf stem ratio as well as green and dry yields of fodder crops. This bioinoculants has also shown equal response as of Azotobacter in different studies (Verma et al., 2014; Yadav et al., 2010; Gawai and Pawar, 2007). Azospirillum has shown its ability to substitute about 25% recommended dose of nitrogen in forage crops (Patil et al., 2008). Although, Azospirillum had positive effect on crop productivity but studies have also reported an improvement in quality attributes i.e. enhancement of protein content and reduction in fibre constituents (Yadav et al., 2007).
 
Constraints in adoption of bio-fertilizers
 
• Availability of improper, less efficient strains for production.
• Unawareness amongst the consumers.
• Lack of knowledge about the application of technology.
• Practical difficulties in implementation and adoption of technology.
• Non-availability of inoculants at the time of requirement.
• Short shelf-life of inoculants.
• Problems in the adoption of the technology by the farmers due to different methods of inoculation.
• No immediate visual difference in the crop growth like that of inorganic fertilizers
• Unreliable results may be due to lack of proper quality, improper method of application and adverse edaphic conditions.

CONCLUSION

Bio-fertilizers play vital role in maintaining long term soil fertility and sustainability by fixing atmospheric nitrogen, mobilizing fixed macro and micro nutrients or convert insoluble forms of nutrients in the soil and make them available to plants, there by increases their efficiency and availability. Bio-fertilizers are recyclable, eco-friendly, less expensive with additional advantages as compare to that of conventional fertilizers. In context of both the cost and environmental impact of chemical fertilizers, excessive reliance on the chemical fertilizers is not viable strategy in long run. Under the situation, biofertilizers would be the viable option to increase and sustain productivity of forage crops.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

All authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES


  1. Adesemoye, A.O., Yuen, G. and Watts, D.B. (2017). Microbial inoculants for optimized plant nutrient use in integrated pest and input management systems. In: Kumar, V. (Ed.), Probiotics and Plant Health. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. pp. 21-40.

  2. Albayrak, S., Sevimay, C.S. and Cocu, S. (2006). Effect of Rhizobium inoculation on forage and seed yield and yield components of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) under rainfed conditions. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B-Soil and Plant Science. 56(3): 235-240.

  3. Anonymous. (2022). 20th Livestock Census. Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1813802.

  4. Assefa, G. and Ledin, I. (2001). Effect of variety, soil type and fertilizer on the establishment, growth, forage yield, quality and voluntary intake by cattle of oats and vetches cultivated in pure stands and mixtures. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 92(1-2): 95-111.

  5. Ayub, M., Tahir, M., Ullahand, R. and Ahmad, W. (2014). Role of inoculation with phosphorous solubilizing bacteria on yield and quality of fodder maize. International Journal of Modern Agriculture. 3(1): 7-11.

  6. Bakulin, M.K., Grudtsyna, A.S. and Pletneva, A. (2007). Biological fixation of nitrogen and growth of bacteria of the genus Azotobacter in liquid media in the presence of Perfluoro carbons. Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology. 4: 399-402.

  7. Bama, S. (2016). Effect of different nutrient sources on fodder yield, quality and soil fertility status of lucerne grown soil. Forage Research. 41(4): 222-227

  8. Begum, N., Qin, C., Ahanger, M.A., Raza, S., Khan, M.I., Ashraf, M., Ahmed, N. and Zhang, L. (2019). Role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in plant growth regulation: implications in abiotic stress tolerance. Frontiers in Plant Science. 10: 1068.

  9. Boddey, R.M., de Oliveira, O.C., Urquiaga, S., Reis, V.M., Olivares, F.L., Baldani, V.L.D. and Dobereiner, J. (1995). Biological nitrogen fixation associated with sugar cane and rice: contributions and prospects for improvement. Plant and Soil. 174: 195-209.

  10. Brahmaprakash, G. and Sahu, P.K. (2012). Biofertilizers for sustainability. Journal of Indian Institute of Science. 92: 37–62.

  11. Chakdar, H. and Pabbi, S. (2020). Microbial bioinoculants for sustainable agriculture: trends, constraints and future perspectives. In: Chandra, R., Sobti, R.C. (Eds.), Microbes for Sustainable Development and Bioremediation. CRC Press. pp. 343-358.

  12. Chen, Y.P., Rekha, P.D., Arun, A.B., Shen, F.T., Lai, W.A., and Young, C.C. (2006). Phosphate solubilizing bacteria from subtropical soil and their tricalcium phosphate solubilizing abilities. Applied Soil Ecology. 34: 33-41.

  13. Dahiya, H.S., Sheoran, H.S. and Tomar, J. (2019). Effect of biofertilizers and cutting management on yield and yield attributes of different cultivars of Egyptian clover (Trifolium alexandrinum L.). Forage Research. 45(2): 151-155.

  14. Dash, N., Pahari, A. and Dangar, T.K. (2017). Functionalities of phosphate- solubilizing bacteria of rice rhizosphere: techniques and perspectives. In: Shukla, P. (Ed.), Recent Advances in Applied Microbiology. Springer Nature, Singapore, Pte Ltd. pp. 151-163.

  15. Gandora, V., Gupta, R.D., and Bhardwaj, K.K.R. (1998). Abundance of Azotobacter in great soil groups of North-West Himalayas. Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science. 46(3): 379-383.

  16. Garcý´a-Fraile, P., Menendez, E., Lera, L.C., Dý´ez-Mendez, A., Jimenez-Go´mez, A., Marcos Garcý´a, M., Cruz-Gonza´lez, X.A., Martý´nez-Hidalgo, P., Mateos, P.F. andRivas, R. (2017). Bacterial probiotics: a truly green revolution. In: Kumar, V. (Ed.), Probiotics and Plant Health. Springer Nature Singapore, Pte Ltd. pp. 131-162.

  17. Gawai, P.P. and Pawar, V.S. (2007). Nutrient balance under INMS in sorghum-chickpea cropping sequence. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 41: 137-141.

  18. George, S., Pillai, G.R. and Pushpakumari, R. (1998). Influence of biofertilizers on productivity of guinea grass intercropped in coconut gardens. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 43(4): 622-627.

  19. Gopalakrishnan, S., Sathya, A., Vijayabharathi, R., Varshney, R.K., Gowda, C.L.L., Krishnamurthy, L. (2015). Plant growth promoting rhizobia: Challenges and opportunities. Biotechnology Journal. 5: 355-77.

  20. Gothwal, R.K., Nigam, V.K., Mohan, M.K., Sasmal, D. and Ghosh, P. (2007). Screening of nitrogen fixers from rhizospheric bacterial isolates associated with important desert plants. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research. 6(2): 101-109.

  21. Gupta, A.K. (2004). The complete technology book on biofertilizers and organic farming. National Institute of Industrial Research Press. India.

  22. Gyaneshwar, P., Kumar, G.N., Parekh, L.J., and Poole, P.S. (2002). The role of soil microorganisms in improving P nutrition of plants. Plant Soil. 245: 83-93.

  23. Hause, B., Mrosk, C., Isayenkov, S. and Strack, D. (2007). Jasmonates in arbuscular mycorrhizal interactions. Phytochemistry. 68: 101-110.

  24. Hazra, C.R. (1994). Response of biofertilizers in forage and fodder crops. Fertilizer News. 39(4): 43-53.

  25. Hinsinger, P. (2001). Bioavailability of soil inorganic P in the rhizosphere as affected by root-induced chemical changes: a review. Plant Soil. 237: 173-195.

  26. Ijaz, F., Riaz, U., Iqbal, S., Zaman, Q., Ijaz, M.F., Javed, H., Qureshi, M.A., Mazhar, Z., Khan, A.H., Mehmood, H. and Ahmad, I. (2019). Potential of Rhizobium and PGPR to enhance growth and fodder yield of berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum L.) in the presence and absence of tryptamine. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research. 32(2): 398-406.

  27. Ingle, K.P. and Padole, D.A. (2017). Phosphate solubilizing microbes: An overview. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 6: 844-852.

  28. Jnawali, A. D., Ojha, R. B., and Marahatta, S. (2015). Role of Azotobacter in soil fertility and sustainability–a review. Advances in Plants and Agriculture Research. 2(6): 1-5.

  29. Johansson, J.F., Paul, L.R. and Finlay, R.D. (2004). Microbial interactions in the mycorrhizosphere and their significance for sustainable agriculture. FEMS Microbioloy Ecology. 48: 1-13.

  30. Kandil, A. E. and Unlu H.O. (2023). Effect of Rhizobium inoculation on yield and some quality properties of fresh cowpea. Cogent Food and Agriculture. 9: 2275410.

  31. Khan, M., Zaidi, S.A., and Ahmad, E. (2014). Mechanism of Phosphate Solubilization and Physiological Functions of Phosphate-solubilizing Microorganisms. In: Springer publishers Switzerland. [Khan, M.S. (eds)]. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319- 08216-5_2.

  32. Kollah, B., Patra, A.K. and Mohanty, S.R. (2016). Aquatic microphylla Azolla: A perspective paradigm for sustainable agriculture, environment and global climate change. Environment Science Pollution Research. 23: 4358–4369.

  33. Kumar, B. and Karmarkar, S. (2015). Effect of tillage and nutrient management on fodder yield, economics and energetic of oat (Avena sativa L.).Forage Research. 41: 19-22.

  34. Kumar, N., Srivastava, P., Vishwakarma, K., Kumar, R., Kuppala, H., Maheshwari, S.K. and Vats, S. (2020). The Rhizobium-Plant Symbiosis: State of the Art. In: Plant Microbe Symbiosis (Varma, A., Tripathi, S., and Prasad, R. (Eds.)). Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Pp. 1-20.

  35. Kumar, S., Kumar, A., Singh, J. and Kumar, P. (2016). Growth indices and nutrient uptake of fodder maize (Zea mays L.) as influenced by integrated nutrient management. Forage Research. 42(2): 119-123.

  36. Lindstrom, K. and  Mousavi, S.A. (2020). Effectiveness of nitrogen fixation in rhizobia. Microbial Biotechnology. 13(5): 1314-1335.

  37. Maitra, S., Praharaj, S., Brestic, M., Sahoo, R.K., Sagar, L., Shankar, T., Palai, J.B., Sahoo, U., Sairam, M., Pramanick, B., Nath, S., Venugopalan, V.K., Skalicky, M., Hossain, A. (2023). Rhizobium as biotechnological tools for green solutions: An environment friendly approach for sustainable crop production in the modern era of climate change. Current Microbiology. 80: 219. 

  38. Mallikarjun, Ram, H., Kumar, R., Singh, M., Meena, R.K. and Kumar, R. (2022). Effect of rhizobia inoculation and tillage practices on fodder cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). Legume Research. 45(5): 608-613. 

  39. Mehnaz, S. (2016). An overview of globally available bioformulations. In: Arora, N.K. (Ed.), Bioformulations: For Sustainable Agriculture. Springer, India. pp. 267-281.

  40. Minaxi Saxena, J., Chandra, S. and Nain, L. (2013). Synergistic effect of phosphate solubilizing rhizobacteria and arbuscular mycorrhiza on growth and yield of wheat plants. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 13: 511-525.

  41. Mishra, S., Sharma, S. and Vasudevan, P. (2009). Effect of single and dual inoculation with Rhizobium and AM fungi on nodulation, fodder production and quality in two Stylosanthes species. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture: An International Journal for Sustainable Production Systems. 26(4): 411-421.

  42. Okumura, R.S., Mariano, D.D.C., Dallacort, R., Nogueira de Albuquerque, A., Lobato, A. D.S., Guedes, E.S., Neto, C., Oliveira da Conceicao, H.E. and Alves, G.R. (2013). Azospirillum: A new and efficient alternative to biological nitrogen fixation in grasses. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment. 2: 1142-1146.

  43. Ozanne, P.G. (1980). Phosphate nutrition of plants-general treatise. The role of phosphorus in agriculture, In: American Soc. Agron. Crop Sci. Soc. America, Soil Sci. Soc. America, Madison, WI, USA.  [Khasawneh F.E., sample E.C., Kamprath E.J. (Eds.)]. pp. 559-589.

  44. Patel, K.M., Patel, D.M., Gelot, D.G. and Patel, I.M. (2018). Effect of integrated nutrient management on green forage yield, quality and nutrient uptake of fodder sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.). International Journal of Chemical Studies. 45: 173-176.

  45. Pathak, D., Kumar, M. and Rani, K. (2017). Biofertilizer application in horticultural crops. Microorganisms for Green Revolution. Springer. 215-227.

  46. Patil, H.M., Tuwar, S.S. and Wani, A.G. (2008). Integrated nutrient management in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) chickpea (Cicer arietinum) cropping sequence under irrigated conditions. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 4: 220-224.

  47. Patil, S.L. (2014). Azosprillium based integrated nutrient management for conserving soil moisture and increasing sorghum productivity. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 9: 1761-1769.

  48. Ramamurthy, V. (2002). Effect of nitrogen and Azospirillum inoculation on growth and green forage yield of Pennisetum trispecific hybrid. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 47(4): 566-570.

  49. Roy, A.K., Agrawal, R.K., Bhardwaj, N.R., Mishra, A.K. and Mahanta, S.K. (2019). In: Indian Fodder Scenario: Redefining State Wise Status [Roy, A.K., Agrawal, R.K.,  Bhardwajeds, N.R. (eds)]. ICAR- AICRP on Forage Crops and Utilization, Jhansi, India. pp. 1-21.

  50. Sharma, K.C. (2009). Integrated nutrient management in fodder oats (Avena sativa) in hot arid ecosystem of Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 54: 459-464.

  51. Sharma, S.C., Chand, R. and Chaturvedi, R.P. (2015). Effect of phosphorus and phosphate solubilizing bacteria on forage yield and quality under agroforestry system. Indian Journal of Small Ruminants. 21(1): 49-52.

  52. Singh, B., Kaushik, M.K. and Sumeriya, H.K. (2015). Production of fodder sorghum as influenced by nitrogen levels and seed rates during summer season in southern Rajasthan. Annals of Agri-Bio Research. 20: 30-31.

  53. Singh, J.S., Kumar, A., Rai, A.N. and Singh, D.P. (2016). Cyanobacteria: A precious bio-resource in agriculture, ecosystem, and environmental sustainability. Frontier Microbiology. 7:  529.

  54. Sprent, J.I. (2008). 60Ma of legume nodulation. What’s new? What’s changing? Journal of Experimental Botany. 59(5): 1081-1084.

  55. Suhameena, B., Devi, S., Gowri, R. and Kumar, A. (2020). Utilization of Azospirillum as a biofertilizer-An overview. International Journal Pharma Science Review Research. 62(22): 141-145.

  56. Tejaswi, Y., Singh, S. and Meshram, M.R. (2021). Effect of zinc and bio-fertilizers on growth, yield and economics of baby corn (Zea mays L.). The Pharma Innovation Journal. 10(10): 167-170.

  57. Thomas, L. and Singh, I. (2019). Microbial biofertilizers: Types and applications. Biofertilizers for Sustainable Agriculture and Environment. 1-19.

  58. Verma, N., Swarnkar, V.K. and Das, G.K. (2014). Effect of organic and inorganic sources of nitrogen with biofertilizer on forage sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]. Trends in Biosciences. 5:101-103.

  59. Yadav, P.C., Sadhu, A.C. and Swarnkar, P.K. (2007). Yield and quality of multi-cut forage sorghum (Sorghum sudanese) as influenced by integrated nutrient management. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 52: 330-334.

  60. Yadav, P.C., Sadhu, A.C., Swarnakar, P.K. and Patel, M.R. (2010). Effect of integrated nitrogen management on forage yield of multicut sorghum, available nitrogen and microbial count in the soil. Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science. 58: 303-308.

  61. Zhang, H., Shi, W., Ali, S., Chang, S., Jia, Q. and Hou, F. (2022). Legume/Maize intercropping and N application for improved yield, quality, water and N utilization for forage production. Agronomy. 12(8): 1777.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)