Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 38 issue 3 (september 2004) : 190 - 195

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

Alka V~rma, Kamlesh Kukreja, Sunita Suneja, Neeru Narula
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 (2024). COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OFPHYfOHORMONE PRODUCBVNONPRODUCERS~SOFAZOTOBACTIR CHROOCOCCUM ON WHEAT (TRITICUMAESTIVUM). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 38(3): 190 - 195. doi: .
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.
    1. Abbass, Z. and Okon. Y. (1993). Soil. Bioi. Biochem.. 25: 1075-1083.
    2. Azcon. R. and Barea. J. M. (1975). PI. Soil., 43: 609-619
    3. Barea. J.M and Brown, M.E. (1974). J. Appl. Bacterial.. 37: 583-593.
    4. Brown. M.E. etal. (1962). PI. Soil.. 17: 309.
    5. Brown. M.E. et al. (1964). PI. Soil.. 20: 194-214.
    6. Jackson. R.M. etal. (1964). Nature. 192: 575-577.
    7. Jain. OK and Patriquin. D.G. (1984). Can. J. Microbial.. 31: 206-210
    8. Jensen. V (1951). Proc. Soc. Appl. Bacterial.. 74: 89-93
    9. Kapulnik. Y etal. (1981). PI. Soil.. 61: 65-70.
    10. Kapulnik. Y et al. (1983). Can. J. Microbial., 29: 895-899.
    11. Leinhos. V and Bergmann, H. (1995). Angew. Bot.. 69: 31-36.
    12. Lippmann. B. etal. (1995). Angew. Bot.. 69: 31-36.
    13. Markham. R. (1942). Biochem. J.. 36: 790-791.
    14. Martinez-Toledo. et al. (1988). PI. Soil.. 110: 149-152.
    15. Morris. HD. etal. (1978). J. Agric. Res.. 19: 1-9.
    16. Narula. N. etal. (1981). Biotech Bioengg.. 23: 467-470.
    17. Suneja. S. and Lakshminarayana. K. (1993). Indian J. Exp. Bioi.. 31 878-881
    18. Suneja. S. et al. (1994). Indian J. Mycol. PI. Pathol.. 24: 202·205.
    19. Tien. T M. etal. (1979) Appl. Environ. Microbial., 37: 1016-1024
    20. Verma. A et aJ (2001). Indian J. Microbial.. 41: 305-307.

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)