volume 38 issue 3 (september 2004) : 190 - 195

COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OFPHYfOHORMONE PRODUCBVNONPRODUCERS~SOFAZOTOBACTIR CHROOCOCCUM ON WHEAT (TRITICUMAESTIVUM)

A

Alka V~rma

K

Kamlesh Kukreja

S

Sunita Suneja

N

Neeru Narula

Affiliations

¹Department of Microbiology, College of Basic Sciences and Humanities, C~ Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar - 125 004, India

Submitted|
First Online |
doi

Cite article:- V~rma Alka, Kukreja Kamlesh, Suneja Sunita, Narula Neeru (2025). COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OFPHYfOHORMONE PRODUCBVNONPRODUCERS~SOFAZOTOBACTIR CHROOCOCCUM ON WHEAT (TRITICUMAESTIVUM). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 38(3): 190 - 195. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Sixteen soil isolates/mutants of Azotobacter chroococcum which were phytohormone producers and non producers were tested for their comparative performance on wheat crop under pot house conditions. A. chroococcum strains producing all the three phytohormones (indole acetic acid, gibberellin, kinetin) performed better with respect to all the growth parameters over the strains producing any two phytohormones or only one. The phytohormone non producer strain (Mala 11) performed poorly with respect to all the growth parameters. Exogenous application of pure phytohormones also improved the plant growth.

KEYWORDS

REFERENCES

Abbass, Z. and Okon. Y. (1993). Soil. Bioi. Biochem.. 25: 1075-1083.
Azcon. R. and Barea. J. M. (1975). PI. Soil., 43: 609-619
Barea. J.M and Brown, M.E. (1974). J. Appl. Bacterial.. 37: 583-593.
Brown. M.E. etal. (1962). PI. Soil.. 17: 309.
Brown. M.E. et al. (1964). PI. Soil.. 20: 194-214.
Jackson. R.M. etal. (1964). Nature. 192: 575-577.
Jain. OK and Patriquin. D.G. (1984). Can. J. Microbial.. 31: 206-210
Jensen. V (1951). Proc. Soc. Appl. Bacterial.. 74: 89-93
Kapulnik. Y etal. (1981). PI. Soil.. 61: 65-70.
Kapulnik. Y et al. (1983). Can. J. Microbial., 29: 895-899.
Leinhos. V and Bergmann, H. (1995). Angew. Bot.. 69: 31-36.
Lippmann. B. etal. (1995). Angew. Bot.. 69: 31-36.
Markham. R. (1942). Biochem. J.. 36: 790-791.
Martinez-Toledo. et al. (1988). PI. Soil.. 110: 149-152.
Morris. HD. etal. (1978). J. Agric. Res.. 19: 1-9.
Narula. N. etal. (1981). Biotech Bioengg.. 23: 467-470.
Suneja. S. and Lakshminarayana. K. (1993). Indian J. Exp. Bioi.. 31 878-881
Suneja. S. et al. (1994). Indian J. Mycol. PI. Pathol.. 24: 202·205.
Tien. T M. etal. (1979) Appl. Environ. Microbial., 37: 1016-1024
Verma. A et aJ (2001). Indian J. Microbial.. 41: 305-307.

Disclaimer :

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Copyright :

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OFPHYfOHORMONE PRODUCBVNONPRODUCERS~SOFAZOTOBACTIR CHROOCOCCUM ON WHEAT (TRITICUMAESTIVUM)

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS

REFERENCES

In this Article

APC

Publish With US

Become a Reviewer/Member

Open Access

Products and Services

Support and Policies

Editorial Board