Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2023)

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

Reviewer Article

Legume Research, volume 44 issue 3 (march 2021) : 243-251

Integrated nutrient management in cowpea with the application of microbial inoculants

S. Ramya1, Gulab Pandove2,*
1Department of Microbiology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141 004, Punjab, India.
2Punjab Agricultural University, Regional Research Station, Bathinda-151 001, Punjab, India.

  • Submitted28-11-2018|

  • Accepted20-02-2019|

  • First Online 05-06-2019|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-4102

Cite article:- Ramya S., Pandove Gulab (2019). Integrated nutrient management in cowpea with the application of microbial inoculants . Legume Research. 44(3): 243-251. doi: 10.18805/LR-4102.

ABSTRACT

Indian livestock sector is one of the largest in the world and fodder is vital component of profitable animal production. Legumes are one of the predominant crops of mixed crop-livestock systems providing highly nutritious fodder as well as contributing soil fertility. Nevertheless, the fodder production and quality in the country is not adequate to meet out the prerequisite of growing livestock population. Optimum nutrition is thus required for getting the maximum forage yield and quality. Nutrient Management is propounded as a promising strategy for addressing such challenges. Microbial inoculants being an important component of integrated nutrient management are eco-friendly and economical sources of nutrient. The benefit of combining organic and inorganic sources of nutrients in integrated nutrient management has proved superior to the use of each component individually. Thus, the present review will feature the need of integrated nutrient management, plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as microbial inoculants, role of microbial inoculants in integrated nutrient management of various leguminous crops and emerging examples of integrated nutrient management in cowpea. The realization attained from literature assessed herein will further help to understand the role of microbial inoculants in integrated nutrient management.  

INTRODUCTION

Indian livestock sector is one of the largest in the world with population of around 529.7 million. This sector had achieved an average growth rate of 4.8 per cent during the eleventh five year plan. Fodder is vital component of profitable animal production in India. It had contributed 3.6 per cent of national GDP during the eleventh year plan. Supplementation of green fodder has become indispensible for nourishing livestock productivity owing to their wealth in macro and micro nutrients. Nevertheless, the fodder production and quality in the country is not adequate to meet out the prerequisite of growing livestock population. To meet out this deficit, the green forage supply has to grow at 1.69% annually (IGFRI, Vision 2050). The only solution for bridging the gap between the demand and supply of green fodder is to maximize the fodder production by identifying advanced forage resources and expanding the fodder production with attainable farming system.
 
Legumes are one of the predominant crops of mixed crop-livestock systems providing highly nutritious fodder as well as contributing soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation. Fodder cowpea (Fatokun et al., 2009) is capable of enhancing the sustainability of livestock production by refining seasonal fodder productivity along with high nutritive value. The productivity of green fodder cowpea is around 25-45 t/ha with seed production potential of 3 q/ha (Ahmad et al., 2017). According to Ministry of Agriculture report (2012), the area under cowpea production has gradually increased from 85,510 ha (2006) to 115,800 ha (2011). However, the average yield remained between 0.2 t-0.5 t/ha. Optimum nutrition is thus required for getting the maximum forage yield and quality. In Punjab, recommended dose of fertilizer for forage cowpea is 7.5kg N (16.5kg urea) as a start a dose and 22kg of P2O5 (140 kg single superphosphate) per acre at sowing (Anonymous 2018). However, application of imbalanced or excessive chemical fertilizers as nutrients result in declining nutrient-use efficiency making fertilizer utilization uneconomical and thereby contaminating environment and underground water quality, causing climate change and health threats.
 
Therefore, there is a need for potential nutrient sources which ought to be cheap and eco-friendly that enable farmers to minimize the use of chemical fertilizer together with conserving soil fertility. Integrated nutrient management is propounded as a promising strategy for addressing such challenges. Microbial inoculants being an important component of INM are eco-friendly and economical sources of nutrient. The use of microbial inoculants in agriculture has substantially increased during the past two decades, (Hayat et al., 2010) as both public and private sector agricultural research and development communities are working to ameliorate the tribulations associated with modern agriculture. This review will feature the need of integrated nutrient management, plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as microbial inoculants, role of microbial inoculants in integrated nutrient management of various leguminous crops. This review will also include specific examples from emerging literature to understand the role of microbial inoculants in integrated nutrient management of cowpea. 
 
Need of integrated nutrient management
 
Major annual forage crops of our country are barley, cowpea, sorghum, lucerne, berseem, maize, pearl millet and oats. However, our country will face a major regional and national scarcity in green fodder production by 2030, because of changing food habits and more dietary reliance on livestock and its products (Anonymous, 2011). Though, fertilizers have played a noticeable role in increasing the productivity of crops but continuous and imbalance use of fertilizers results in deterioration of soil health (Dhavappriya et al., 2015). A judicious and combined use of organic and inorganic sources of plant nutrients is required to maintain soil vigour and manage the efficiency of nutrients. The optimal and balanced use of nutrient inputs from inorganic and organic fertilizers is of fundamental importance for plant growth (Behera et al., 2007).  Integrated nutrient management is a fundamental part of sustainable agriculture which requires the organization of resources in a way to fulfil the changing human needs without declining environmental quality and conserving vital natural resources. Integrated nutrient management (INM) is combined use of mineral fertilizers with organic resources like urban/rural wastes, crop residues, composts, cattle manures, green manures and biofertilizers (Antil, 2012). Such combined use of organic and inorganic sources of plant nutrient not only pushes the production and profitability of field crops, but also benefits in maintaining stable fertility status of the soil (Kannan et al., 2013). The advantage of combining organic and inorganic sources of nutrient in integrated nutrient management has proved superior to the use of each component individually (Palaniappan and Annadurai, 2007).
 
Advantages of integrated nutrient management
 
INM augments the yield potential of crops over and above achievable yield through: (a) adequate mineralization, (b) reduced nitrogen losses through denitrification and nitrate leaching, (c) escalated nutrient use efficiency and recovery by crops and (d) improved soil health and productivity.
 
Moreover, it optimizes the soil conditions by improving its physical, biological, chemical and hydrological properties (Esilaba et al., 2004). The grain quality is comparatively superior under INM, which is accompanied by high profitability, improved soil health and sustainability (Behera et al., 2007).
 
Further, Nath et al., (2011) indicated that integrated nutrient management has the potential to expand microbial biomass carbon, soil enzymes activities, organic carbon and bacterial populations. Under INM practices the losses through volatilization, emissions, leaching, runoff and immobilization are minimized, while high nutrient-use efficiency is achieved (Zhang et al., 2012). These changes in turn extend the nutrient pool of available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium for plants growth (Marimuthu et al., 2014).
 
INM requires nutrient application time and the amount to be in harmony with the crop nutrient supplies (Cassman et al., 2002). Farmers often apply huge quantity of N fertilizer before planting. Hence resulting in a large amount of inorganic N being available in the soil before it is required by rapid crop growth (Chen et al., 2006). This tribulation can be alleviated by the principle of INM that control the N losses and its detrimental effect on environment while attaining excessive crop productivity (Gruhn et al., 2000).
 
Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as microbial inoculants
 
The term plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) was conceived for the first time by Kloepper et al., (1980) to describe the microbial population in the rhizosphere (the region of soil in the vicinity of plant roots) which colonize the roots of plants, enhance crop productivity and protect the environment. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria help in expanding sustainable agriculture as they are eco-friendly and cost effective in addition improves soil fitness and maintain natural soil fauna (Kannan and Sureendar, 2009). PGPR act as biofertilizers or microbial inoculants as well as biopesticides (Das et al., 2013). The term “Biofertilizer” or “Microbial inoculants” is defined as a preparation containing latent or live cells of efficient strains of phosphate solubilizing, nitrogen fixing or cellulolytic microorganism that are used for application in seeds, soils or composting areas with the objective of increasing the number of microorganisms and accelerating the microbial process thereby augmenting the availability of nutrients that are easily assimilated by plants (Borasate, 2009). PGPR encourage plant growth by direct and indirect mechanisms. Indirect plant growth promotion is mediated by siderophores and antibiotics produced by PGPR that lessen or prevent the detrimental effects of plant pathogenic microorganisms (Afzal and Bano, 2008). Whereas, direct promotion of growth by PGPR include production of metabolites such as cytokinins and auxins that enhance plant growth through solubilization of insoluble phosphorus compounds by release of organic acids and phosphatases (Hadad et al., 2010). Many plant growth-promoting bacteria such as Azotobacter, Azospirillum, Bacillus, Burkholderia, Flavobacterium, Pseudomonas and Pantoea have shown to enhance growth and yield in many crops by production of IAA as reported by Ali et al., (2010). Similarly, ACC-deaminase producing bacteria includes Bacillus, Burkholderia, Enterobacter cloacae, Methylobacterium oryzae, Pseudomonas fluorescens, P. putida, Pseudomonas spp. and Variovorax paradoxus ( Zabihi et al., 2011). Thus, PGPR are commonly selected on the basis of certain features such as ability of biological nitrogen fixation or production of phytohormones such as siderophores, enzymes like 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase and rhizosphere-colonizing ability (Zahir et al., 2004).

Likewise, a wide range of siderophore-producing bacteria including P. chlororaphis, Proteus sp., Alcaligenes faecalis, Pseudomonas spp., Bacillus, Burkholderia, Serratia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, P. fluorescens have shown to stimulate plant growth (Sayyed and Chincholkar, 2009). Similarly, soil bacteria in the genera, Sinorhizobium, Rhizobium, Mesorhizobium, Allorhizobium and Bradyrhizobium belonging to the family Rhizobiaceae, invade plant root systems and form root nodules (Martinez- Romero and Wang, 2000). Jeffreis et al., (2003) reported that benefitial pant-microbe interactions in the rhizosphere are determinants of plant health and soil fertility. The interactions in the rhizosphere play a vital role in transformation, mobilization and solubilisation of essential minerals from a limited nutrient pool in the soil and following uptake. Thus, the practice of using plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) as crop inoculants for biofertilization, phytostimulation and biocontrol would be a positive substitution to decrease the use of chemical fertilizers which affect the atmosphere due to indiscriminate application.
 
Role of microbial inoculants in integrated nutrient management of various leguminous crops
 
Vessey (2003) described biofertilizer/ microbial inoculant is a substance which comprises of living microorganisms, which when applied to seed, plant surfaces, or soil colonizes the rhizosphere or interior of the plant and stimulates plant growth by strengthening the supply or availability of primary nutrients to the host plant (Vessey, 2003). Bio-fertilizers or Microbial inoculants are the essential components of INM. Microbial inoculants are more often mentioned as selected strains of beneficial soil microorganisms cultured in the laboratory and packed in appropriate carriers (Hari and perumal, 2010). These potential biological fertilizers would play a crucial role in productivity and sustainability of soil (Khosro and Yousef, 2012) and adding nutrients through natural processes of BNF, phosphate solubilizing and growth promoting substances (phytohormones).
 
Vedram et al., (2002) observed that moong bean responded significantly higher to the application of Zn, sulphur, nitrogen with Rhizobium and Azotobacter inoculation and resulted in increased nutrient uptake as compared to their respective control.
 
Mathew and hameed (2002) reported that the inoculation of PSM +AMF at 30 kg P2O5/ ha resulted in highest green pod of 4451 kg per ha and haulm of 8915 kg per ha yields, net return of 15673 rupees per ha and benefit cost ratio of 1.54.
 
Singh et al., (2006) observed that in pea inoculation of Rhizobium + VAM + PSB along with 75% NPK resulted in significantly higher yield. Negi et al., (2006) also studied the effect of microbial inoculants (Rhizobium leguminosarum + Pseudomonas striata) @ 250 g per 10 kg seed, nutrient sources (FYM @ 20 t per ha and NPK @ 25:25:25 kg/ha) and lime (@ 4 t per ha) on growth and yield of garden pea. The results showed that composite inoculation of microbial inoculants significantly improved the growth and yield of pea over uninoculated control.

Stancheva et al., (2006) evaluated the effects of combined inoculation of pea plants with Rhizobium and vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza on nodule formation and nitrogen fixation activity and demonstrated that with dual inoculation of pea plants results in increased plant biomass, nodules parameters, N-fixation activity at varying levels compared to single inoculation with Rhizobium leguminosarum (strain D293) and depended on vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi species.
 
Meena and Mann (2006) studied the application of mixture of phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB) and Rhizobium trifolii along with 20 kg nitrogen +60 kg phosphorous in berseem and noted highest green fodder of 65.45 tonnes per ha, dry matter yield of 16.98 tonnes per ha and protein content of 19.7% in berseem.
 
Patel et al., (2007) concluded that application of FYM @ 5 t/ha along with Rhizobium and PSB recorded significantly higher number of pods per plant (28.70) and higher grain (1171 kg ha-1) and straw (1014 kg ha-1) yield in chickpea.
 
Likewise, inoculation of Rhizobium, vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza and Nitrogen levels in green gram resulted a significant enhancement in nodule dry weight, spore density, rhizobial counts and root colonization over the control (Singh et al., 2009).
Bhardwaj et al., (2010) demonstrated that combined application of FYM, crop residue and dual inoculation of Azotobaceria/Rhizobium with vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza produced a yield response and quality in par with application of 75% recommended NPK in French bean. This might be due to positive effect of bio-fertilizers and organics on soil health.
 
Ramana et al., (2010) evaluated the impact of VAM and PSB along with graded dose of fertilizers on growth, yield attributes and yield of French bean. Further, revealed that the application of 75 per cent RDF along with VAM @ 2 kg/ha and PSB @ 2.5 kg/ha significantly improved the plant height, number of branches/ plant, leaf area and dry weight.
 
El-Shaikh et al., (2010) recorded that application of 22.5 kg of phosphorus and inoculation with VAM in pea cultivar improved total green pod yield along with highest number of pods per plant.
 
Choudhary et al., (2011) observed that application of 25 kg N and 50 kg P2O5 and 40 kg K2O along with Rhizobium, VAM and PSB produced significantly higher available nitrogen and available phosphorous in groundnut. Jha et al., (2012) demonstrated the impact of single and dual phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB) strain inoculations on overall growth of mungbean. These results were obtained on par with SSP and commercial biofertilizers of PSB (Bacillus polymyxa) and MC (Pseudomonas striata) as standard reference.
 
Another, field experiment was conducted in soybean by Kumar et al., (2012) who reported the application of 100% recommended dose of nitrogen through urea, Rhizobium and phosphate solubilizing bacteria resulted in significantly higher plant height at harvest (104.7 cm), number of nodules/plant at 50 DAS (23.5), green weight of nodule/plant at 50 DAS (96.0 mg), number of green pods/plant at harvest (31.74 g), seed yield (910 kg/ ha) and stover yield (2737 kg/ ha), over other treatments.
 
Lingaraju et al., (2016) reported that microorganisms with phosphate solubilizing ability (PSB) escalates the availability of soluble phosphate and revamp growth of plant by improving biological nitrogen fixation (BNF). Further, Makoi et al., (2013) demonstrated that rhizobia inoculation significantly increased the uptake of Magnesium (Mg), Potassium (K), Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and Calcium (Ca) in P. vulgaris parts.

Emerging examples of integrated nutrient management in cowpea
 
Cowpea (family fabaceae) is one of the most significant leguminous forage crops. It is the only essential kharif fodder cum pulse crop for rain fed as well as irrigated areas. In India, it has a production of about 2.21 million tones with 3.9 million hectares area under cultivation and national productivity of 683kg/ha (Mandal et al., 2009).
 
The area under fodder crops in punjab is approximately 0.86 million hectares and the yearly production is about 67.27 million tonnes of green fodder (Anonymous, 2018). In Punjab, cowpea is grown predominantly for fodder starting from March to mid-July. Due to its fast growing nature, it supplies nutritious and palatable fodder during kharif when there is scarcity of green fodder. It is an important component of traditional cropping systems as it fixes quite substantial amount of N as well as contributes to soil fertility particularly in smallholder farming systems where little or no fertilizer is used. Like other legumes, cowpea fixes atmospheric nitrogen through biological nitrogen fixation (BNF), a symbiotic association between soil dwelling bacteria (commonly between rhizobia and legume host plants). In addition, it has high economic returns and high nutritional value (Akibode, 2011). There are many works on growth and yield of cowpea in response to Rhizobia (Ahmed and Kibret, 2014). However, for cowpea to provide an adequate supply of N, they require rhizobia either through the presence of effective native rhizobia, or through inoculation. In combination with effective rhizobia and proper management, cowpea yields can be enhanced. Cowpea can fix up to 88 kg N/ha while in an effective cowpea-Rhizobium symbiosis it can fix more than 150 kg N/ha which can supply 80-90% of plants total N requirement (Kormata et al., 2000).

Giller (2001) estimated that cowpea can fix up to 200 kg N under field conditions. Cowpea yield was significantly higher with complementary application of inorganic and organic fertilizers than from sole organic and inorganic fertilizer treatments (Ayoola and Makinde 2007).
 
While Swaroop and Rathore (2002) noted the impact of phosphorous (0, 40, 80 and 120 kg per ha), potassium (0, 60 and 120 kg per ha), Rhizobium application, nitrogen (20 kg per ha) and  Rhizobium + nitrogen on green pod yield, nutrient contents in pods and economics of vegetable cowpea variety Ar ka Garima. The treatment 80 Kg P, 60 kg K and 20 kg N/ha with Rhizobium inoculation contributed to the maximum yield of green pods (147.34 q/ha).

Kahlon and Sharanappa (2006) reported that application of 50 kg P2O5, 20 kg S, 10 kg ZnSO4/ha along with PSB (Bacillus megaterium) and VAM (Glomus mosseae) in cowpea resulted in a greater uptake of  nitrogen (155 kg/ha), phosphorus (33.6 kg/ha), potassium (57.4 kg/ha), sulphur (11.5 kg/ha), zinc (135 g/ha), iron (255 g/ha), copper (88.6 g/ha)  as compared to other treatments.
 
Band et al., (2007) showed that application of 75% RDF (90 kg N and 60 kg P2O5 ha-1), 25% N through FYM and biofertilizers (Rhizobium + PSB) resulted in higher plant height (36.04 cm), number of leaves per plant (11.20), number of branches per plant (5.93) and leaf area per plant at 60 DAS (131.10 dm2) as compared to other treatments.
 
Band et al., (2007) reported that the application of 100% recommended nitrogen in cowpea was on par with the application of 75% recommended nitrogen + 25% nitrogen through FYM or vermicompost and 75% recommended nitrogen + 25% nitrogen through FYM or vermicompost + biofertilizers (Rhizobium + PSB [phosphate-solubilizing bacteria]). Thus, there was a saving of 25% N fertilizer due to integration of FYM or vermicompost, and biofertilizers such as Rhizobium and PSB with fertilizers.
 
Singh et al., (2007) showed that Rhizobium inoculation along with 30 kg N and 60 kg P2O5/ha produced significantly higher number of pods per plant, length per pod, seed index, seed and straw yield of cowpea over control. Accordingly, Cowpea can fix about 40 kg N/ha from nodules in the presence of right rhizobia strain which can satisfy the crop nitrogen requirements. Das et al., (2011) demonstrated that number of leaves, plant height, number of pods, branches per plant, diameter and length of pods were significantly improved by the application of 75 per cent RDF+ Vermicompost+Rhizobium+PSB as compared to recommended dose fertilizer which resulted in saving of 25 per cent chemical fertilizer.
 
Prasad et al., (2012) also evaluated that the inoculation of PSB+ Rhizobium along with 20 kg N per ha in cowpea considerably augmented the growth factors such as crop growth rate, plant height, plant dry weight, number of root nodules per plant and yield attributing characters including seed index, grains per pod, pods per plant and grain and haulm yield. Pramanik and Bera (2012) also observed that in cowpea plant, height significantly improved by inoculation with biofertilizers (PSB, Rhizobium and VAM). Senthilkumar and Sivagurunathan (2012) reported more number of pods in cowpea by combined inoculation of Phosphobacteria, Rhizobium and Azospirillum. Kumar and Pandita (2016) studied that integrated use of inorganic fertilizers and vermicompost at 2.5 t/ha resulted in significantly better seed yield and seed quality parameters than the control. It was at par with intermingled use of inorganic fertilizers and biofertilizer inoculation (Rhizobium+PSB) +VAM 10 kg/ha.
 
Likewise the field experiment conducted by Patel et al., (2012) on effect of integrated nutrient management on yield and economics of cowpea revealed that application of 20 kg N and 40 kg P2O5/ha along with PSB and Rhizobium inoculation significantly increased seed yield over application of 10 kg N + 20 kg P2O5/ ha but it was at par with application of 10 kg N + 20 kg P2O5 /ha along with PSB which indicated that PSB+ Rhizobium or only PSB inoculation saved 50 percent nitrogen and phosphorus as chemical fertilizers. The highest benefit cost ratio value was recorded with the application of 10 kg N + 20 kg P2O5 per ha along with PSB+ Rhizobium inoculation.

CONCLUSION

This review portray that there is a tremendous scope for increasing the yield potential of cowpea by use of microbial inoculants thereby enhancing the nutrient availability and better plant growth.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors express their sincere thanks to Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 141004, Punjab, India.

REFERENCES


  1. Afzal A and Bano A. (2008). Rhizobiumand phosphate solubilizing bacteria improve the yieldand phosphorus uptake in wheat (Triticum aestivum). International Journal of Agriculture and biology, 10: 85-88.

  2. Ahmed M and Kibret M. (2014). Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: Current perspective. Journal of King Saud University – Science, 26: 1-20.

  3. Ahmad A, Tomar GS, Taunk SK and Verma N. (2017). Evaluation of new cultivars of fodder cowpea in terms of growth attributes and seed yield as influenced by various doses and varieties Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci, 6(10): 937-944.

  4. Akibode CS. (2011). Trends in the production, trade and consumption of food-legume crops in sub-Saharan Africa. Master of Science Thesis in Agricultural Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan State University. 

  5. Ali B, Sabri AN and Hasnain S. (2010). Rhizobacterial potential to alter auxin content and growth of Vigna radiata (L.). World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 26: 1379–84.

  6. Antil RS (2012). Integrated Plant Nutrient Supply for Sustainable Soil Health and Crop Productivity, A.Kumar (ed.) Vol. 3. Focus Global Reporter.

  7. Anonymous. (2011). IGFRI Vision 2030. Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi (U. P.), India.

  8. Anonymous (2018). Package of Practices for Crops of Punjab-Kharif. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.

  9. Ashwathy AJ, Jasim B, Jyothis M and Radhakrishnan EK. (2012). Identification of two strains of Paenibacillus sp. as indole 3 acetic acid-producing rhizome-associated endophytic bacteria from curcuma longa. Biotech, 3:219-224.

  10. Ayoola OT and Makinde EA. (2007). Fertilizer treatment effects on performance of cassava under two planting patterns in a cassava based cropping system in south west Nigeria. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Science, 3: 13-20. 

  11. Band AM, Mendhe SN, Kolte HS, Choudhary RL, Verma R and Sharma SK. (2007). Nutrient management studies in French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of Soils and Crops 17: 367-372.

  12. Bashan Y, Salazar B, Puente ME. (2009). Responses of native legume desert trees used for reforestation in the Sonoran Desert to plant growth-promoting microorganisms in screen house. Biol Fertile Soils, 45:655–662.

  13. Borasate A. (2009). Optimization of growth and production of protease by Penicillium species using submerged fermentation.” International Journal of Microbiology Research .Pp14-18. 

  14. Bedmar EJ, Robles EF and Delgado MJ. (2005). The complete denitrification pathway of the symbiotic, nitrogen-fixing bacterium Bradyrhizobium japonicum. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 33: 141–144.

  15. Behera UK, Pradhan S and Sharma AR. (2007). Effect of integrated nutrient management practices on productivity of durum wheat (Triticum durum) in the Vertisols of central India. Annals of Plant and Soil Research, 9: 21-24.

  16. Bhardwaj SK, Kaushal R, Sharma Y and Chaudhary V. (2010). Effect of conjoint use of inorganic fertilizers and organics on soil fertility and growth parameters of tomato and French bean crops in mid hills of Himachal Pradesh. Progressive Horticulture, 42: 58-64.

  17. Cassman KG, Dobermann A, and Walters DT. (2002). Agroecosystems, nitrogen use efficiency, and nitrogen management. Ambio, 31: 132–140.

  18. Chen YP, Rekha PD, Arun AB, Shen FT, Lai WA and Young CC. (2006). Phosphate solubilizing bacteria from subtropical soil and their tri calcium phosphate solubilizing abilities. Applied Soil Ecology, 34: 33-41. 

  19. Choudhary SK, Jat MK, Sharma SR and Singh P. (2011). Effect of INM on soil nutrient and yield in groundnut field of semi-arid area of Rajasthan. Legume Res., 34: 283-287. 

  20. Das B, Wagh AP, Dod VN, Nagre PK and Bawkar SO. (2011). Effect of integrated nutrient management on cowpea. The Asian Journal of Horticulture, 6: 402-405.

  21. Das AJ, Kumar M and Kumar R. (2013). Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR): An Alternative of Chemical Fertilizer for Sustainable, Environment Friendly Agriculture. Research Journal of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, 1: 21-23. 

  22. Dhavappriya A, Sanjivkumar V and Kumaran ST. (2015). Studies on the impact and efficiency of integrated nutrient management on yield, major and secondary nutrient content of okra crop for sustainable agriculture. International Journal of agricultural Science, 11(1): 63-67.

  23. El-Shaikh, KAA, EI-Dakkak AAA and Obiadalla- Ali HA. (2010). Maximizing productivity of some garden pea cultivars and minimizing chemical phosphorus fertilizer via VA mycorrhizal inoculants. Journal of Horticultural Science & Ornamental Plants, 2: 114-122.

  24. Esilaba AO, Byalebeka JB, Delve RJ, Okalebo JR, Senyange D, Balule M and Sali H. (2004). On farm testing of integrated nutrient management strategies in eastern Uganda. Agricultural System, 86: 144–165.

  25. Fatokun C, Boukar O, Muranaka S and Chikoye D. (2009). Enhancing drought tolerance in cowpea. African Crop Science Conference Proceedings. 9: 531-536.

  26. Fraile PG, Menéndez E and Rivas R. (2015). Role of bacterial biofertilizers in agriculture and forestry. Bioeng, 2(3): 183-205.

  27. Giller KE. (2001). Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Cropping Systems. Wallingford, CT: CAB International. 

  28. Gruhn P, Golleti F and Yudelman M. (2000). Integrated Nutrient Management, Soil Fertility and Sustainable Agriculture: Current Issues and Future Challenges. Washington D.C. International Food Policy Research Institute. Food, Agriculture and Environment    Discussion Paper 32.

  29. Hadad EI, ME, Mustafa MI, Selim SM, Mahgoob AEA and EI-Tayeb TS. (2010). In vitro evaluation of some bacterial isolates from Ethiopia and South Africa. Journal of Biological Control, 45: 72-84.

  30. Hari M and Perumal K (2010). Booklet on Bio-fertilizer(phosphabacteria). Shri Annm Murugapa Chettiar Research Centre Taramani Chennai, pp.1–6.

  31. Hayat R, Ali S, Amara U, Khalid R and Ahmed I. (2010). Soil beneficial bacteria and their role in plant Plant Growth Promotion: A Review. Annals of Microbiology, 60: 579-598. 

  32. https://ncof.dacnet.nic.in/OrganicInputproductionstatistics/BFandOFProductionstatistics2010-11to2011-12.pdf

  33. IGFRI Vision. 2050. Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi (UP) – 284003.

  34. Jeffries P, Gianinazzi S, Perotto S, Turnau K and Barea JM. (2003). The contribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in sustainable maintenance of plant health and soil fertility. Biological Fertilizers Soils, 37: 1–16.

  35. Jha A, Sharma D and Saxena J. (2012). Effect of single and dual phosphate solubilizing bacteria strain inoculations on overall growth of mungbean plants. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 58: 967-981.

  36. John RP, Tyagi RD, Brar SK, Prevost D. (2010). Development of emulsion from rhizobial fermented starch industry wastewater for application as Medicago sativa seed coat. Eng Life Sci, 10:248–25.

  37. Kahlon CS and Sharanappa RK. (2006). Nutrient uptake, quality and balance of nutrients as influenced by phosphorus, bio-inoculants, zinc and sulphur in cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp]. Environment and Ecology, 245: 220-233.

  38. Kannan RL, Dhivya M, Abinaya D, Krishna RL and Krishna kumar S. (2013). Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on Soil Fertility and Productivity in Maize. Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences, 2: 61-67.

  39. Kannan V and Sureendar R. (2009). Synergistic effect of beneficial rhizosphere microflora in biocontrol and plant growth promotion. Journal of Basic Microbiology, 49: 158-164.

  40. Kormata P, Tamo M, Fatokum C, Taraali C and Singh B. (2000). Challenges and opportunities for enhancing sustainable cowpea production. Proceedings of the World Cowpea Conference III held in International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA).    Ibadan,Nigeria.

  41. Khosro M and Yousef S. (2012). Bacterial bio-fertilizers for sustainable crop production: A review APRN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, 7: 237-308.

  42. Kloepper JW, Leong J, Teintze M and Schroth MN. (1980). Enhancing plant growth by siderophores produced by plant growth-    promoting rhizobacteria. Nature, 286: 885–886.

  43. Kumar MK, Patel IC and Ali S. (2012). Integrated nutrient management in clusterbean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L.). Legume Research, 35: 350-353.

  44. Kumar A and Pandita VK (2016). Effect of integrated nutrient management on seed yield and quality in cowpea. Legume Research, 39: 448-452.

  45. Kyei-Boahen S, Canon EN, Chikoye D and Abaidoo R (2017). Growth and Yield Responses of Cowpea to Inoculation and Phosphorus Fertilization in Different Environment. Front. Plant Sci. 8:646.

  46. Lingaraju NN, Hunshal CS and Salakinkop SR. (2016). Effect of biofertilizers and foliar application of organic acids on yield, nutrient uptake and soil microbial activity in soybean. Legume Research, 39(2): 256-261. 

  47. Makoi JHJR, Bambara S and Ndakidemi PA. (2013). “Rhizobium Inoculation and the Supply of Molybdenum and Lime Affect the Uptake of Macroelements in Common Bean (P. vulgaris L.) Plants.” Aust. J. Crop Sci. 7: 784-794.

  48. Mandal MK, Pati R, Mukhopadhyaya, D and Majumdar K. (2009). Maximizing yield of cowpea through soil test based nutrient application in Tarai alluvial soils. Better Crop India 28-30. 

  49. Mathew MM and Hameed SMS. (2002). Influence of microbial inoculants and phosphorus levels on the root characters, growth and yield of vegetable cowpea [Vigna unguiculata subsp. sesquipedalis (L.) Verdcourt]. Journal of Tropical Agriculture, 40: 71-73.

  50. Marimuthu S, Surendranb U and Subbianc P. (2014). Productivity, nutrient uptake and post-harvest soil fertility as influenced by cotton-based cropping system with integrated nutrient management practices in semi-arid tropics. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 60(1): 87-101.

  51. Martinez-Romero and Wang ET. (2000). Sesbania herbacea-Rhizobium huautlense nodulation in flooded soils and comparative characterization of S. herbacea-nodulating rhizobia in different environments. Microbiology Ecology, 40: 25–32.

  52. Meena LR and Mann JS. (2006). Strategic nutrient supplementation in berseem for higher biomass productivity and economic return under semiarid conditions. Range Management and Agroforestry, 27: 40-43.

  53. Ministry of agriculture (MOA) (2012). Economic review and planning paper.

  54. Nath DJ, Ozah B, Baruah R, Barooah RC and Borah DK. (2011). Effect of integrated nutrient management on soil enzymes, microbial biomass carbon and bacterial populations under rice (Oryza sativa)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) sequence. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science, 81: 1143–1148.

  55. Negi S, Singh RV and Dwivedi DK. (2006). Effect of biofertilizers, nutrient sources and lime on growth and yield of garden pea. Legume Research, 29: 282-285.

  56. Palaniappan SP and Annadurai K. (2007). Organic farming: theory and practices, Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, Rajasthan (India). 

  57. Patel D, Arvadia MK and Patel AJ (2007), Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and nutrient uptake by chickpea on vertisol of south Gujarat. Journal of Food Legume, 20: 113-114.

  58. Patel PS, Patel IS, Panickar B and Ravindrababu Y. (2012). Management of sucking pests of cowpea through seed treatment. Trends in Biosciences, 5: 138-139.

  59. Prasad M, Dawson J, and Yadav RS. (2012). Effect of different nitrogen sources and phosphate solubilizing bacteria on growth and yield of grain cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]. Crop Research, 44: 59-62.

  60. Pramanik K and Bera AK. (2012). Response of biofertilizer and phytohormone on growth and yield of chick pea (Cicer arietinum L.). Journal of Crop and Weed, 8: 45-49.

  61. Ramana V, Ramakrishna M, Purushotham K and Reddy KB (2010). Effect of bio-fertilizers on growth, yield attributes and yield of french bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Legume Research, 33: 178–183.

  62. Reichman SM. (2007). The Potential Use of the Legume-Rhizobium Symbiosis for the Remediation of Arsenic Contaminated Sites. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 39:2587-2593. 

  63. Sayyed R and Chincholkar S. (2009). Siderophore-Producing Alcaligenes feacalis Exhibited More Biocontrol Potential Vis-à-Vis Chemical Fungicide. Current Microbiology, 58: 47-51. 

  64. Senthilkumar PK and Sivagurunathan P. (2012). Comparative effect on bacterial biofertilizers on growth and yield of green gram (Phaseolus radiata L.) and cow pea (Vigna siensis Edhl.). International. Journey of Current Microbiology Applied Science, 1: 34-39.

  65. Singh DK, Chand L, Singh KN and Singh JK. (2006). Effect of different biofertilizers in combination with chemical fertili zers on pea (Pisum sativum L.) under temperate Kashmir conditions. Environment and Ecology, 24: 684-686.

  66. Singh AK, Tripathi PN and Singh R. (2007). Effect of rhizobium Inoculation, nitrogen and phosphorous levels on growth, yield and quality of kharif cowpea. (Vigna unguiculata) (L.) Walp. Crop Research, 33: 71-73.

  67. Singh SR, Bhat MI, Wani JA and Najar GR. (2009). Role of Rhizobium and VAM fungi for improvement i n fertility and yield of greengram under temperate conditions. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 57: 45-52. 

  68. Stancheva I, Geneva M, Zehirov G, Tsvetkova G, Hristozkova M, Georgiev G. (2006). Effects of combined inoculation of pea plants with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and rhizobium on nodule formation and nitrogen fixing activity. Gen. Appl. Plant Physiology 61-66.

  69. Swaroop K and Rathore SVS. (2002). Economics, nutrient content and pod yield of vegetable cowpea in relation to application of P K and Rhizobium biofertilizer in Andaman. Indian Agriculturist, 46: 153-160.

  70. Tank N and Saraf M. (2009). Enhancement of Plant Growth and Decontamination of Nickel-Spiked Soil Using PGPR. Journal of Basic Microbiology, 49: 195-204.

  71. Thamer S, Schadler M, Bonte D and Ballhorn DJ. (2011). Dual benefit from a belowground symbiosis: Nitrogen fixing rhizobia promote growth and defense against a specialist herbivore in a cyanogenic plant. Plant and Soil, 341:209–219.

  72. Trimurtulu N and Rao DLN. (2014). Liquid Microbial Inoculants and their Efficacy on Field Crops, ANGRAU, Agricultural Research Station, Amaravathi, pp 54.

  73. Vedram Mishra, SK and Upadhyay RM. (2002). Effect of Sulphur,Zinc and biofertilizer on quality character in Mung bean. Indian Journal Pulse Research, 15: 139-141.

  74. Vessey JK. (2003). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. Journal of Plant and Soil, 255: 571-586.

  75. Wani PA, Khan S and Zaidi A. (2008). Effect of Metal-Tolerant Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobium on the Performance of Pea Grown in Metal-Amended Soil. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 55: 33-42.

  76. Zabihi H, Savaghebi G, Khavazi K, Ganjali A and Miransari M. (2011).Pseudomonas bacteria and phosphorous fertilization, affecting wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yield and P uptake under greenhouse and field conditions. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 33: 145–52.

  77. Zahir ZA, Arshad M and Frankenberger WT. (2004). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: Applications and perspectives in agriculture. Advances in Agronomy, 81: 97-168.

  78. Zhang F, Cui Z, Chen X, Ju X, Shen J, Chen Q, Liu X, Zhang W, Mi G, Fan M and Jiang R. (2012). Integrated nutrient management for food security and environmental quality in China. Adv Agronomy, 116: 1–40. 
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)