Banner

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.217, CiteScore: 0.595

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, 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
Submit

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 35 issue 1 (march 2001) : 31-35

RHIZOBACTERIA FROM FIELD GROWN MUNGBEAN PLANT GROWTH PROMOTING POTENTIAl.

Alka Gupta·, Murali Gopal·, K.V.B.R. Tilak
1Division of Microbiology Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi' - 110012, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Gupta· Alka, Gopal· Murali, Tilak K.V.B.R. (2025). RHIZOBACTERIA FROM FIELD GROWN MUNGBEAN PLANT GROWTH PROMOTING POTENTIAl.. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 35(1): 31-35. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Increasing levels of RSC in irrigation water decreased the electrolyte concentration (ECe), soluble calcium, magnesium and sodium and exchangeable calcium and magnesium content of the soil. However, an increase in pH, soluble carbonates and bicarbonates and exchangeable sodium was recorded as a consequence of rise in RSC levels of irrigation water. A higher dry matter accumulation, root weight, and a lower Na/K ratio in plants of genotype SR-16 and Arjuna were recorded as compared to other genotypes under study showing a higher degree of tolerance to RSC levels in irrigation water. Further, a deterioration to higher degree in physico-chemical properties of the soil and reduction in growth and uptake of nutrients by foxtail millet plants were apparent on clay loam soil as compared to sandy loam soil.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Alstrom, S. (1987) PI. Soil, 102 : 3-9.
    2. Burr, T.J. et al. (1978) Phytopathology, 69 : 565-568.
    3. Dileep,C. et al. (1998) Indian J. Exp. Bioi., 36 : 399-402.
    4. Dubeikovsky, A.N. et al. (1993) Soil Bioi. Biochem., 25 : 1277-1281.
    5. Geels, F.P. et al. (1986) Neth. J. Plant Pathol., 92 : 257-272.
    6. Katznelson, H. and Shirley, E.C. (1965) Can. J. Microbiol., 11 : 733-741.
    7. Kloepper, J.w. et al. (1980a) Curro Microbiol., 4 : 317-320.
    8. Kloepper, J.W. et al. (1980b) Nature, 2~6 : 885-886.
    9. Lalande,R. et al. (1989) PI. Soil, 115 : 7-11.
    10. Loper, J.E. and Schroth, M.N. (1986) Phytopathology, 76 386-389.
    11. Ousley, M.A. et al. (1993) Microb. Ecql., 26 : 277-285.
    12. Panse, V.G. and Sukhatme, P. V. (1961) .. Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers. Indian
    13. Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. •
    14. Savithiry, S. and Gnanamanickam, S.S. (198'1) PI. Soil, 102 : 11-15.
    15. Scott, T.K. (1972) Tn : Phytopathogenic Prokaryotes. (Eds. M.S. Mount and G.H. Lacy).
    16. Vol. I, Academic Press, New York, pp. 187 - 223.
    17. Suslow, T.V. and Schroth, M.N. (1982) Phytopathology, 72 : 199·206.
    18. Van Peer, R. and Schippers, B. (1988) Can. J. Microbiol., 35 : 456-463.
    19. Van Wuurde, J.W.K. and Tonneyck, A.E.G. (1978) PI. Soil, 50 : 473.
    20. Vrany, J and Fiker, A. (1984) Folia Microbiol., 29 : 248-253.
    21. Weller, D.M. and Cook, R.J. (1983) Phytopathology, 73 463·469
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)