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 (2024)

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

Full Research Article

Legume Research, volume 47 issue 7 (july 2024) : 1208-1212

Ameriolations with VAM and PSB Inoculation of Growth and yield attributes in Pea (Pisum sativum L.) cv. Arkel

Siddharth Shankar Bhatt1,*, Maragani Vamshi2, Vishwajeet Singh3, Priya Rani4, Deen Dayal5, Ankur Gupta6, Ashwani Kumar Sanghi7, Smita Agrawal8, Nitin Wahi9, Kundan Kumar Chaubey10
1Department of Agriculture, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar-400 075, Uttarakhand, India.
2Department of Soil Science and Agriculture Chemistry, Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore-641 003, Tamil Nadu, India.
3Department of Botany, Dhanauri PG College Dhanauri, Haridwar-247 667, Uttarakhand, India.
4Taqgene Training and Research Institute, Kotra Santoor Road, Dehradun-248 007, Uttarakhand, India.
5Department of Biotechnology, GLA University, Mathura-281 406, Uttar Pradesh, India.
6Department of Microbiology, School of Life Sciences, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra-282 004, Uttar Pradesh, India.
7School of Allied and Health Sciences, MVN University, Palwal-121 105, Haryana, India.
8Department of Horticulture, B.M. College of Agriculture, RVSKVV, Khandwa-450 001, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India.
9Department of Bioinformatics, Pathfinder Research and Training Foundation, Greater Noida-201 308, Uttar Pradesh, India.
10School of Basic and Applied Sciences, Sanskriti University, Mathura-281 401, Uttar Pradesh, India.

  • Submitted27-02-2023|

  • Accepted07-02-2024|

  • First Online 09-03-2024|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-5123

Cite article:- Bhatt Shankar Siddharth, Vamshi Maragani, Singh Vishwajeet, Rani Priya, Dayal Deen, Gupta Ankur, Sanghi Kumar Ashwani, Agrawal Smita, Wahi Nitin, Chaubey Kumar Kundan (2024). Ameriolations with VAM and PSB Inoculation of Growth and yield attributes in Pea (Pisum sativum L.) cv. Arkel . Legume Research. 47(7): 1208-1212. doi: 10.18805/LR-5123.

ABSTRACT

Background: Pea (Pisum sativum L.) is one of the most important legume grown all over the world with its varied uses as vegetables and other processed products. Its production and productivity in recent times have witnessed a diminishing graph due to numerous biotic and abiotic stresses. With unexploited use of synthetics in legume crops number of nodule formation have reduced to lowest levels. VAM (Vesicular Arbuscular Mycorrhiza) and PSB (Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria) inoculation in soil have been observed in enhancing number of nodules, levels of NPK uptake and yield in pea. 

Methods: Considering the importance of above facts and experiment was laid in 2022 with RBD with three replications containing 7 treatments viz. T1 (Control), T2 (75% RDF + 25% PSB), T3 (50% RDF + 50% PSB), T4 (75% RDF + 25% VAM), T5 (50% RDF + 50% VAM), T6 (75% RDF + 12.5% VAM + 12.5% PSB) and T7 (50% RDF + 25% VAM + 25% PSB).  

Result: Investigations indicated that the treatment T7 (50% RDF + 25 % VAM + 25% PSB) showed significantly high growth, yield and quality like plant height (113.90 cm), number of leaves (87.09), number of branches (20.2), number of nodules (90.56), numbers of pod/plant (19.1), pod length (8.97 cm), number of seeds per pod (8.23), green pod yield/plot (4.80 kg), green pod yield/ha (80.12 q) compared to control. Hence, T7 (50% RDF + 25% VAM + 25% PSB) evidently exhibited a conglomeration of bio nutrient uptake enhancers resulting in maximum yield and quality.

INTRODUCTION

Pea (Pisum sativum L.) is the most prominent pulse crop with considerable economic importance among all the other pulses belongs to the family Fabaceae. It is an excellent source of digestible protein (21-25%), carbohydrates, vitamin A, C, calcium and phosphorus and is one of the world’s most widely grown winter season legume crops (Jitendra, 2011).
 
Dry-shelled pea consists of higher levels of the amino acids lysine and tryptophan than cereal grains and is marketed as nutrition for both humans and livestock food (Schatz and Endres, 2009). Lutein is also found in abundance in peas, which is good for the eyes. It is commonly consumed as a raw vegetable or in canned, processed, or dried form.
 
Pulses production in recent time has shown a decline trend due to major constraints ranging from biotic and abiotic stress. Poor soil fertility in mariginal and sub mariginal land has been one of the prominent factors contributing to low yield. Lack of available nutrients in such soils results in stunted growth. Root nodules alone present in the roots of pulses cannot manage to enhance growth. Biofertilizers on the other hand not only increases nodulation percentage but also enhances the availability of nutrients in mariginal soils (Sharma et al., 2019). Bio-fertilizers are considered to play a critical role in enhancing nitrogen and phosphorus availability, as well as promoting biological nitrogen fixation and crop phosphorus availability to legumes crops. They are live, ready-to-use formulations of beneficial microorganisms that mobilize the availability of nutrients through biological processes when applied to seed, root, or soil. Also the number of beneficial microorganism species can enhance crop growth through a variety of mechanisms (Uikey et al., 2015). Therefore, the use of VAM-fungi is exploding throughout the country because of its potential advantages in agriculture, forestry, wasteland development and revegetation of damaged biodiversity. In recent years, the positive effects of mycorrhizal fungus in various plants have been thoroughly studied. The phosphorus cycle and plant phosphorus assimilation are both dependent on VAM (Geetha et al., 2017). By improving P uptake, these fungi help most field crops growth and their productivity. Also, the VAM biofertilizers have been demonstrated to be effective in increasing plant availability of macro and micronutrients, as well as in preventing pathogenic organisms from invading plant roots, therefore protecting plant roots from biotic and abiotic stresses. On the other hand, the PSB culture used as seed inoculation has a massive effect on the solubilization of various insoluble organic and inorganic phosphates added to the soil as phosphate supplements (Harishkumar et al., 2019). These microbial inoculants can replace almost 20-25 per cent of a plant’s phosphorus need. Furthermore, introducing PSB into agronomic activities would not only help to offset the high cost of producing phosphate fertilizers, but it would also help to mobilize insoluble nutrients from fertilizers and soils (Chang and Yang, 2009). About 40 per cent pulse growing regions have low to medium population of native rhizobium. Seed inoculation with biofertilizer (Rhizobium and PSB) - low cost inputs - can increase pulse productivity by 10-12 per cent in India (Tiwari and Shivhare, 2016).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Examination of the effect of VAM and PSB inoculation under pea (Pisum sativum L.) was completed at Crop Research Centre (CRC), School of Agriculture, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun in the rabi season of 2022-23. The experimental region’s soil was sandy clay loam with a pH of 7.2, available N (301.5 kg ha-1), P (12.44 kg ha-1), K (233.6 kg ha-1) and organic carbon (1.31%). The analysis was spread out in a RBD with three replications containing 7 treatments viz. T1 (Control), T2 (75% RDF + 25% PSB), T3 (50% RDF + 50% PSB), T4 (75% RDF + 25% VAM), T5 (50% RDF + 50% VAM), T6 (75% RDF + 12.5% VAM + 12.5% PSB) and T7 (50% RDF + 25% VAM + 25% PSB). Glomus mosseae species in VAM and Pseudomonas spp. of PSB were predominant in both biofertilizers. Arkel variety was chosen and it was sown in lines in 3m x 2m plots at a seed rate of 80kg/ha for each replication and treatment. Data on various growth and yield parameters were collected from the five tagged plants in each plot and averaged were recorded for statistical analysis.
 
Finally, crop harvesting was done by hand-picking. The observations were subjected to statistical analysis by using Randomized Block Design (RBD) as per procedure given by Cochran and Cox (1959). Mean differences were tested by ‘F’ test at 5 per cent level of significance (LOS). Critical difference (CD) at 5 per cent level of probability was used for comparison among treatments and was used for test of significance between the treatments.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Growth parameters
 
Plant height
 
Table 1 shows the information about plant height. The treatment T7 (50% RDF + 25% VAM + 25% PSB) obtained maximum plant height of 113.90 cm which was effective and significant over control. The minimum plant height was observed in T1 (Control) (80.71 cm). The plant height gradually increased at a faster rate due to better supply of nutrients reached its maximum height till harvest.  The supply of nutrients and availability are two different components which determines the growth pattern of legumes. Faster growth rate eventually results in shorter maturity period with maximum yield. Both VAM and PSB collectively might have enhanced the availability of both nitrogen and phosphorus resulting in enhanced plant height. Similar trends were also obtained by Jaga and Sharma (2015), who revealed that VAM and seed inoculation of PSB improved growth parameter. Pramanik and Bera (2012) also concluded his studies on inoculating chickpea plants with PSB and VAM increased growth indices such as plant height.

Table 1: Effect of growth parameters on pea as influenced by VAM and PSB inoculation.


 
Number of leaves
 
The highest number of leaves (87.09) was recorded at treatment T7 (50% RDF + 25% VAM + 25% PSB) while the least number of leaves (82.73) was shown by T1 (Control) (Table 1). The influence of biofertilizer varied the number of leaves for different growth phases. The perusal of data implies that when applied alone they didn’t show any significant results. But both VAM and PSB in integration with other synthetic fertilizers successfully enhanced number of leaves which enhanced amount of photosynthates. PSB have been reported to affect number of leaves in numerous legumes along with pea. Choudhary et al., (2017) investigations revealed that among different regime of biofertilizers inoculation of PSB led to greatest, number of leaves per plant. Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential elements responsible for growth and development. Their availability in soluble form might have increased number of leaves in pea. Muley et al., (2016) also reported similar results with the use of liquid based PSB which produced noticeably greater number of leaves per plant.
 
Number of branches
 
Maximum number of branches (20.2/plant) was observed in treatment T7 (50% RDF + 25% VAM + 25% PSB) which was highly significant over control while the minimum branches (9.86/plant) was noted in T1 (Control). Number of branches in legumes plays a pivotal role in number of pods and yield. It showed positive correlation with number of pods and yield. Different biofertilizers tend to produce varied branches. Both VAM and PSB collectively increased number of branches in comparison to when applied alone. Among them both biofertilizers with inorganic nitrogen sources has shown positive result in enhancing number of branches (Das et al., 2011).
 
Number of nodules
 
The maximum number of nodules (90.56) was observed in treatment T7 (50% RDF + 25% VAM + 25% PSB) while the minimum number of nodules (80.6) were noted in T1 (Control). The other treatments T2 (75% RDF + 25% PSB), T3 (50% RDF + 50% PSB), T4 (75% RDF + 25% VAM), T5 (50% RDF + 50% VAM and T6 (75% RDF + 12.5% VAM + 12.5% PSB) also showed significant effects over control. The use of biofertilizer greatly affects the root nodules by performing proper N-fixation. VAM is a free living nitrogen fixing bacteria which acts as a saprophyte and enhances number of root nodules. PSB on the other hand helps in solubilizing phosphorus. When used alone both didn’t enhanced nodules but collectively applied showed significant increase in number of nodules. These nodules further enhance availability of nutrients in the root zone of legumes. Tomar et al., (2001) also concluded his findings that inoculating different biofertilizers resulted in the greatest increase in nodulation with VAM found to observe maximum nodules in pea.  Moreover, VAM also considerably increased number of nodules per plant in chickpea (Yaseen et al., 2011).
 
Yield attributes and yield
 
Numbers of pod/plant
 
Yield depicts quantitative character which is governed by polygenes. When comparing the number of pods per plant under different treatment to the control, it was observed that pods per plant varied dramatically. Maximum number of pods/plant (19.1) was recorded in T7 (50% RDF + 25% VAM + 25% PSB) while the least was observed in T1 (Control) (15.93). All the treatments were found to be significant over control except T2 (75% RDF + 25 % PSB) (16.15). Use of two different biofertilizer (VAM and PSB) with RDF has greater influence on number of pods/plant. As legumes crop needed phosphorous for better yield, the combination of two phosphorous giving biofertilizer (VAM and PSB) showed positive results on number of pods/plant. The similar findings were observed in Kaur and Rawat (2020) examined that the yield-related attributes were judged to be superior with the assessment seed treatment with PSB, resulting in a number of pods per plant (8.23). Additionally, Rajput et al., (2022) also investigated the effects of culture, liquid and capsulated biofertilizer on the growth, yield and quality characteristics of vegetable pea. The results showed that PSB dramatically improved the yield parameters like number of pods per plant.
 
Pod length (cm)
 
Table 2 showed that the treatment T7 (50% RDF + 25% VAM + 25% PSB) was effective and significant over control. Maximum pod length (cm) was observed in T7 (50% RDF + 25% VAM + 25% PSB) obtaining 8.97 cm which was statistically at par with T2 (75% RDF + 25% PSB), T3 (50% RDF + 50% PSB). Minimum pod length (7.55 cm) was noted in control in which no biofertilizers was incorporated (Graph 1). Because of their proper uptake of nutrient supply, the application of biofertilizer gradually increased pod length and contributed the positive effect of yield parameters.  Moreover VAM and PSB showed positive relation in enhancing pod length in comparison to either VAM or PSB alone. Similar results were found with the findings of Heisnam et al., (2017) who reported maximum pod length with the use of different biofertilizer.

​

Table 2: Effect of yield parameters on pea as influenced by VAM and PSB inoculation.



Graph 1: Correlation between pod length and yield.


 
Number of seeds per pod
 
The highest number of seeds per pod (8.23) was observed in T7 (50% RDF + 25% VAM + 25% PSB) while the least was observed in T1 (Control) (7.20). The number of seeds per pod indicated how biofertilizers collaborate by enabling the production of more seeds on pods, which leads to better flowering and later fruiting. This can be correlated with how biofertilizer application has a significant impact on the reproductive phase and improves yield. Moreover, seed inoculation with biofertilizers considerably improved number of seeds per pod, which resulted in substantially larger yield properties (Teli et al., 2016). Experimentation on the impact of INM on seed yield and characteristics in field pea revealed enhanced number of seeds per pod (Pandey et al., 2017). It possessed positive relationship with pod length and no. branches.
 
Pod yield/plot (kg)
 
When comparing under different treatment to the control, T7 (50% RDF + 25% VAM + 25% PSB) has obtained maximum yield of 4.80 kg/ plot while the least was observed in T1 (Control) (3.63 kg/plot). The treatment T7 (50% RDF + 25% VAM + 25% PSB) was also statistically at par with T2 (75% RDF + 25 % PSB), T4 (75% RDF + 25% VAM) and T6 (75% RDF + 12.5% VAM + 12.5 % PSB). Pod yield depicts interrelation with pod length and number of seeds/pod.  VAM and PSB enhanced the available form of major elements required for increased yield. Nodulation increase particularly had a greater impact in surge in yield in Ramana et al., (2010) experimented that use of VAM, PSB with measured fertiliser dosages increased yield attributing characteristics and yield  like pod yield per plant. Rajput et al., (2022) also investigated that use of different biofertilizer with RDF improved yield parameters of pod yield/plot and total pod yield dramatically.

CONCLUSION

Depending on the outcomes of the experiment, it can be concluded that the combination of 50% RDF + 25% VAM + 25% PSB was the most superior treatment in terms of growth and yield parameters. Using biofertilizer for legume crops also enhanced nutrient availability for crop production. As a consequence, the application of 50% RDF + 25% VAM + 25% PSB under various pea varieties is advised for upcoming researchers in order to produce greater outcomes, but VAM and PSB can indeed be recommended for farmers. The results are merely indicative; further research is needed to draw a more reliable and conclusive conclusion.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are thankful to G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar-for providing all the necessary facilities in conducting the study successfully.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors have no conflict of interest in this manuscript.

REFERENCES


  1. Chang, C.H. and Yang, S.S. (2009). Thermo-tolerant phosphate- solubilizing microbes for multi-functional biofertilizer preparation. Bioresearch and Technology. 100: 1648-1658.

  2. Cochran, W.G. and Cox, G.M. (1959). Experimental Designs, John Willey Pub., New York.

  3. Choudhary, M., Jat, R.K, Chand, P. and Choudhary, R. (2017). Effect of bio-fertilizers on growth, yield and quality of knol-khol. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 6(6): 2234-2237.

  4. Das, B. Wagh, A.P, Dod, V.N., Nagre, P.K. and Bawkar, S.O. (2011). Effect of integrated nutrient management on cowpea. Asian Journal of Horticulture. 6(2): 402-405.

  5. Geetha, G.P., Rajashekhar, L. and Patel, V.G.M. (2017). Crop productivity and economics of soybean (Glycine max L.) as influenced by bio fertilizers and phosphorus levels cured with FYM in vertisols. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts. 5(3): 396-400.

  6. Harishkumar, J.M., Karishmaa, C., Meenaloshini, N., Nagavalli, K., Pavithra, P., Sowbejan, A., Aruna, S.J. and Theradimani, M. (2019). Effect of biofertilizers and vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizae on holy basil (Ocimum sanctum). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 8(6): 1316-1326.

  7. Heisnam, P., Sah, D., Moirangthem, A., Singh, M.C., Pandey, P.K., Mahato, N.K, Longjam, N., Debnath P. and Pandey, A.K. (2017). Effects of rhizobium, PSB inoculation and phosphorus management on soil nutrient status and performance of cowpea in acid soil of Arunachal Pradesh, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 6(8): 937-942.

  8. Jaga, P.K. and Sharma, S. (2015). Effect of biofertilizer and fertilizers on productivity of soybean. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 17(2): 171-174.

  9. Jitendra, K. (2011). Effect of phosphorus and Rhizobium inoculation on the growth, nodulation and yield of garden pea (Pisum sativum L.) cv. Mattar AGENTA- 6. Legume Research. 34: 20-25. 

  10. Kaur, S. and Rawat, M. (2020). Response of vegetable cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) to integrated nutrient management: A review. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 9(6): 1070-1074.

  11. Muley, P.V., Shinde, V.S. and Ughade, S.R. (2016). Comparative Studies on Carrier and Liquid Based Biofertilizer on Growth and Yield of Green Gram (Vigna radiata L.). Advances in Life Sciences. 5(5): 1680-1683.

  12. Pandey, V., Dahiya, O.S., Mor, V.S., Yadav, R., Jitender, O.H. and Brar, A. (2017). Impact of integrated nutrient management on seed yield and its attributes in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Chemical Science Review Letters. 6(23): 1428-1431.

  13. Pramanik, K. and Bera, K. (2012). Response of biofertilizers and phytohormone on growth and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinium. L). Journal of Crop and Weed. 8(2): 45-49. 

  14. Rajput, S., Shukla, N., Lakpale, R., Gayen, R. and Saxena, R.R. (2022). Studies on the effect of culture, liquid and capsulated bio fertilizer on yield attributes of vegetable pea (Pisum sativum L.). The Pharma Innovation Journal. 6: 1206-1212.

  15. Ramana, V., Ramakrishna, M., Purushotham, K. and Reddy, K.B. (2010). Effect of biofertilizers on growth, yield attributes and yield of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Legume Research. 33(3): 178-183.

  16. Schatz, B. and Endres, G. (2009). Field Pea Production. North Dakota State University, Fargo, USA. 203-210.

  17. Sharma, V. Sharma, S. and Kumar, V. (2019). Synergistic effect of bio inoculants on yield, nodulation and nutrient uptake of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under rainfed conditions. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 42(4): 1-10.

  18. Teli, L.K., Singh, V., Kaushik, R.A., Dhakar, R., Sarolia, D.K. and Teli, S.K. (2016). Effect of phosphorous and biofertilizers on yield of pea (Pisum sativum L.). The Ecoscan. 9: 457- 461.

  19. Tiwari, A.K. and Shivhare, A.K. (2016). Pulses in India: Retrospects and Prospects. Directorate of Pulses Development, Vindhyachal Bhavan, Bhopal. 1(2): 16-25.

  20. Tomar, A., Kumar, N., Pareek, R.P. and Chaube, A.K. (2001). Synergism among VA mycorrhiza, phosphate solubilizing bacteria and Rhizobium for symbiosis with black gram (Vigna mungo L.) under field conditions. Pedosphere. 11(4): 327-332.

  21. Uikey, V., Verma, H. and Nawange, D. (2015). Influence of organic, chemical and biofertilizer on growth and yield of pea. Agricultural Science Digest. 35(3): 237-240.  doi: 10.5958/ 0976-0547.2015.00055.5.

  22. Yaseen, T., Burni, T. and Hussain, F. (2011). Effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculation on nutrient uptake, growth and productivity of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) varieties. African Journal of Biotechnology. 10(43): 8593-8598.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)