Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Sustainable Development of Horticulture and Forestry through Bio-Inoculants

Written By

Easan Mohan and Kuppu Rajendran

Submitted: February 22nd, 2019Reviewed: May 30th, 2019Published: November 27th, 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.87148

From the Edited Volume

Sustainable Crop Production

Edited by Mirza Hasanuzzaman, Marcelo Carvalho Minhoto Teixeira Filho, Masayuki Fujita and Thiago Assis Rodrigues Nogueira

Chapter metrics overview

825 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

The role of microorganism is very critical in nutrient management of horticulture and plantation forestry. They are conductors of the nutrient management orchestra as they provide by inputs in terms of micro and macronutrients besides organic matter and can be called as bio-inoculants (biofertilizers). Biofertilizers play a vital role in fixing the atmospheric nitrogen and mobilization of phosphorous, sulfur, manganese, copper, and iron in the soil. Symbiotic (Rhizobium and Frankia) and nonsymbiotic microorganisms (Azospirillum) are known to improve the soil fertility by fixing the atmospheric nitrogen. Arbuscular mycorrhizae fungi (AM fungi) and phosphobacterium have ability to transfer insoluble phosphate into soluble form. Moving in this direction it becomes imperative to understand as forest microbiologist and pathologist, the roles played by microorganism in diverse plants-soil-microbe interaction to analyze their effectiveness in improving their efficiency. Biofertilizers are economy and environmentally safe, and there is a growing awakening among the tree growers and farmers. In agriculture, advantages of biofertilizer application are better known, but in tree crops, the utility of biofertilizers is still in an experimental stage. The review paper is collective evident for the compatibility of different biofertilizers and their augmentation effect on the production of quality seedling and nutrient management of tropical horticulture and plantation forestry.

Keywords

  • arbuscular mycorrhizae fungi (AM fungi)
  • bio-inoculants (biofertilizers)
  • horticulture
  • plantation forestry
  • sustainable nutrient management
  • Rhizobium
  • Frankia

1. Introduction

Plants are being an important component of socio-economic condition of human life and culture. Ever since the beginning, tree crops have furnished use with three of life’s essentials, wood, food and oxygen. Besides these, they provide additional necessities to human being such as shelter, fuel wood, fodder for livestock, ethno medicine, architectural, agriculture implements, building construction tools, sound and wind barriers, soil improvement through litter production and nitrogen fixation in association with Rhizobium and Frankia. Many drugs which derived from plants generally have been replaced by more potent synthetic ones and trees remain a source for some drug ingredients for pharmaceutical industry. They play an important role in ecosystem services through carbon sequestration, improving air quality, climate amelioration, and conservation of water and supporting wildlife. They also reduce the atmospheric temperature and the impact of greenhouse gases by maintaining low levels of carbon dioxide.

Plant growth and productivity is generally regulated by the availability of soil nutrients. One of the major efforts to increase the plant productivity is through management of nutrients, which can be achieved by application of fertilizers. However, application of chemical fertilizers is not eco-friendly and economically viable in current scenario. Other alternative method is supplement of bio-inoculants (bio-fertilizers) for sustainable development of horticulture and forestry crops. Bio-inoculants are plant growth promoting beneficial microorganisms such as the species of Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Ecto and Endo-mycorrhizalfungi, Frankia, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Trichoderma,etc. Such microorganisms accelerate certain microbial process to augment the extent of availability of nutrients in the form, which can be assimilated by plants and also maintain the plant health by controlling diseases.

Advertisement

2. Rhizosphere and microbial interaction

Various types of microorganisms inhabit air, water and soil. They play an important role in restoring the physical, chemical and biological property of soil. Rhizosphere ecology and microbial interactions are responsible for key environmental processes, such as the bio-geo chemical cycling of nutrients, organic matter and maintenance of plant health and soil quality [1]. Among the microbial population, both beneficial and harmful bacteria as well as fungal species were found, but the microbial population was low when compared to rhizosphere soil [2].

Rhizosphere is the physical location in soil where plants and microorganisms interact. The interest in the rhizosphere microbiology derives from the ability of the soil microbiota to influence plant growth and vice versa. The presence of microorganisms in the rhizosphere will increase root exudation and it was found that 5–10% of the fixed carbon was exudates from the root under sterile condition, on the introduction of beneficial microorganisms, root exudation rate increases by 12–18%. The interaction between bacteria and fungi associated with plant roots may be beneficial, harmful or sometimes neutral for the plant, and effect of a particular bacterial species may very as a consequence of soil environmental conditions [3]. The beneficial microbes can be divided into two major types based on the living nature; free living (that live in soil) and symbiotic relationship with the plant root nodule of legume and actinomycete plants [4].

Advertisement

3. Bio-inoculants

Bio-inoculants are beneficial microorganisms for nutrient management, plant growth and are eco-friendly and natural inputs providing alternate source of plant nutrients, thus increasing farm income by providing extra yields and reducing input cost also. Bio-inoculants increase crop yield by 20–30%, replace chemical N and P by 25%, stimulate plant growth, enhance soil biodiversity, restore natural fertility and provide protection against drought and some soil borne plant pathogens. The role of bio-inoculants has already been proved extensively in enhancing the mineralization processes of organic matter and helping the release of nutrients, utility of soil organic matter contents and cations exchange capacity [5] and therefore, bio-inoculants are gaining importance in agriculture for the past few decades. However, the scientific exploitation of bio-inoculants in horticulture and forestry is scanty in developing countries like India.

Advertisement

4. Classification of bio-inoculants for tree crops

  1. Nitrogen fixing symbiotic microorganisms (Rhizobiumand Frankia)

  2. Nitrogen fixing non-symbiotic microorganisms (Azospirillum, Azotobacterand blue-green algae)

  3. Phosphate solubilizing microorganisms (Arthrobacter, Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Aspergillus)

  4. Phosphate mobilizing microorganisms (Ecto and Endo—Mycorrhizal fungi)

  5. Potash mobilizer (Bacillussp., Pseudomonassp.)

  6. Sulfur uptake (Pseudomonas, Klebsiella, Salmonella, Enterobacter, Serratiaand Thiobacillus)

  7. Zinc solubilizer (Bacillus subtilis, Thiobacillus thiooxidansand Saccharomycessp.)

  8. Iron uptake (Pseudomonas fluorescens)

  9. Plant growth promoters (Pseudomonassp., Bacillussp., Serratiasp.)

Advertisement

5. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR)

Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria are group of bacteria that actively colonize roots and increase plant growth and yield [6]. It enhances plant growth and productivity by synthesizing phytohormones, increasing the availability and facilitating the uptake of nutrients by decreasing heavy metal toxicity in the plants, antagonizing the plant pathogens [7]. The mechanisms by which PGPR promote growth are not fully understood [8], against phytopathogenic microorganisms by production of siderophores, the synthesis of antibiotics, enzymes and fungicidal compounds [9] and also solubilization of mineral phosphates and other nutrients [10].

5.1 Azospirillum

Azospirillumspecies are free-living N2-fixing bacteria commonly found in soils and in association with roots of agriculture, horticulture and forestry species [11]. Azospirillumare known to act as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and stimulate plant growth directly either by synthesizing phytohormones or by promoting improved N nutrition through biological nitrogen fixation (BNF). PGPR also produce several the growth promoting substances including IAA, GA3, Zeatin and ABA [12]. Presently there are seven species have been identified in this genus, A. amazonense[13], A. brasilense, A. lipoferum,[14], A. doebereinerae[15], A. halopraeferens[16], A. irakense[17] and A. largimobile[18].

Applications of plants with Azospirillum have promoted plant growth of agronomically important field crops by 10–30% in the field experiment [19, 20]. Nursery experiments proved that the inoculation of tree cops with Azospirillumcould result in significant changes in various growth parameters, particularly shoot and root growth, biomass, nutrient uptake, tissue nitrogen content, leaf size of several shola tree species [21] and Casuarina equisetifolia[22, 23], C. cunninghamianaMig. [24], Moringa oleifera[25], Acacia nilotica[26], Azadirachta indica[37], Delonix regia[28], Erythrina indica[29], Feronia elephantum[30], Jatropha curcas[31]. Two years old Casuarina equisetifoliaplants treated with bio-inoculants in field condition improve the growth of plants by 90% over uninoculated control [32]. Azospirillum lipoferumtreated with Jatropha curcasunder field conditions has increased the shoot length by 44.85% and primary and secondary root length by 39.3 and 37.5% respectively. Similarly, the root and shoot biomass also increased by 24.01 and 15.04% leaf area by 28.57% increase over control and the other Azospirillumspecies such as A. brasilense, A. haloferenceand A. amazonense[33]. The stimulatory effect exerted by Azospirillumhas been attributed to several mechanisms including secretion of phytohormones (auxins and gibberellins), biological nitrogen fixation, and enhancement of mineral uptake of plants [8] due to the ability of synthesis of in vitro phyto-hormones such as IAA, gibberellins, cytokinin [34, 35] and produced by ethylene [36].

5.2 Effect of bio-inoculants and biochemical changes of tree crops

Plants inoculated with A. brasilensewere always characterized by a higher chlorophyll concentration. Inoculation of crops caused a statistically significant increase of chlorophyll content in the case of oats in 1996 (15%) and wheat in 1997 (15%). Chlorophyll appeared to be a sensitive indicator of inoculation effect, which was also supported by Bashan et al. [37]. A. lipoferuminoculated Jatropha curcasseedlings has increase in level of chlorophyll a, b and carotene and such increase was maximum by 31.98, 14.5 and 18.9% and protein content (37.35%) amino acid (26.33), lipids (8.9) and carbohydrates (9.37) when compare to control plant under field conditions [31]. The total chlorophyll and soluble protein content was found to be higher in the Moringa oleiferaseedlings inoculated with A. brasilense[25].

5.3 Pseudomonas

The genus Pseudomonasis one of the most diverse gram-negative non-spore forming, motile, rod shaped bacteria with an important metabolic versatility and pathogenicity [38]. Morphologically this genus is straight or slightly curved rods and produced yellowish green pigment in King’s B. Medium. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria consisting of primarily Pseudomonas fluorescensand P. putidawere identified as important organisms with ability for plant growth promotion and effective disease management properties. The population density of fluorescent pseudomonas in the rhizosphere in usually reduced by AM fungi colonization [34, 3940]. Many strains of genus Pseudomonaspossess the capability to promote plant growth [41], due to their 1-aminocyclopropane-I carboxylate deaminase activity, indole acetic acid (IAA) and siderophore production [42], PGPR can exert a beneficial effects on plant growth by suppressing soil borne pathogens [43], improving mineral nutrition [44] and phytohormone synthesis [45].

Advertisement

6. Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi

The symbiotic association between fungus and root systems of higher plants is called mycorrhiza, which literally means root fungus. Ectomycorrhizae and entomycorrhizae or arbuscular mycorrhizae (AM) are playing important role in phosphorus and micronutrients uptake by tree species. The AM fungi association is endotrophic, and has previously been referred to as vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza (VAM), this name has been dropped since 1997 in favor of AM fungi, because all fungi are not produced vesicles [46]. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi belong to the division Zygomycetes and order Glomales. There are six genera of AM fungi have been identified and are Glomus, Gigaspora, Aculospora, Scutellospora, Entrophosphora,and Sclerocystis. Acaulosporaand Scutellosporabelong to Gigasporaceae; Glomusand Sclerocystisbelong to Glomaceae [47]. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), belonging to the phylum Glomeromycota,are obligate symbiotic fungi forming mutualistic associations with the roots of most of the tropical plants. Increased access to low-mobility soil mineral nutrients has been considered to be main beneficial effect of AMF on their host plants [48]. In addition, they have been shown to improve the uptake of Zn, Cu, S, Mg, Ca, K and other nutrients [49]. The AM fungal mycelia have been reported to stabilize soil through the formation of soil aggregated [50].

Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi are the most widespread type and ecologically important root fungal that form symbiosis with 80% of land plant species which depend upon them for growth [51]. AM fungal symbiosis is characterized by fungal penetration of root cortical cells forming microscopic branched structures called arbuscules that increase that increase efficiency of plant-fungus metabolite exchange [48]. These microsymbionts occur widely under various environmental conditions with beneficial effects on soil structure improvement [52, 53] and have great importance due to their higher capacity to increase growth and yield through efficient nutrient uptake in infertile soils, water uptake and drought resistance in plants [54].

6.1 A combined effects AM fungi and Pseudomonasin tree species

The interaction between Pseudomonasand the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus, Glomus clarumNT4 on spring wheat grown under gnotobiotic condition was investigated [55]. Although plant growth responses varied, positive response to Pseudomonad inoculants was obtained. Shoot biomass enhancement ranged from 16 to 48%, whereas enhancement ranged from 82 to 137% for roots. Typically, dual inoculation positively influenced the magnitude of response associated with any organism applied alone.

The highest mycorrhizal root colonization and number of AM fungal spores, and pseudomonas population were observed when G. fasciculatumand P. monteiliiwere coinoculated on to Coleus forskohliiplants [56] under organic field condition. Negative effects of Glomus intraradiceson population of PGPR, P. fluorescensDF57 were shown by Ravnskov et al. [57] and suggested that competition for inorganic nutrients might explain the effect, since the mechanism did not require cell-to-cell contact. Marschner et al. [58, 59] suggested that similar negative effects of Glomus intraradiceson P. fluorescens2-79RL might be due to mycorrhizal induced decreases in root exudation, affecting the composition of the rhizosphere soil solution. P. fluorescens92rk and P190r, and G. mosseaeBEG12, inoculated alone, promoted tomato plant growth. Plant growth promotion by florescent pseudomonads has been ascribed to the suppression of phytopathogenic soil-borne microorganisms [4360]. Moreover, co-inoculation of three microorganisms showed synergistic effects compared with single inoculated plants and reports demonstrate additive effects on plants on plant growth of AMF and rhizobacteria [61, 62].

6.2 Effect of AM spores in rhizosphere of three species

The occurrence of AM spores depends upon the environmental conditions, plant species and soil type. There are two different types of AM spores such as Acaulosporaand Glomuswere observed in non-rhizosphere soil. Among the two different AM spore, Glomus was the dominant one. Spore density was very low 8 spore/100 g of soil [63, 64]. Analysis of root colonization was higher in mycorrhizal than non- mycorrhizal plants. Santhaguru et al. [65] reported that VAM infection was 100% in Albizia amara, Peltophorum pterocarpumand Pongamia glabra, 80% in Derris scandens78% in Erythrina variegata, 18% in Pterlobiumand16% in Prosopis chilensis. However, there is no VAM fungi infection in five plant species viz. Albizia lebbeck, Bauhinia tomentosa, Cassia, Prosopis julifloraand Tamarindus indicaat Alagar Hills of Tamil Nadu, India. Similarly, AM Fungi colonized with several tree species semi-arid zone of South India, 1, 2 and 3 years old Casuarina equisetifolia[2], Leucaena leucocephala[66], Feronia elephantumwith AM fungi (Glomus fasciculatum), Samanea saman[67]. Similarly, 16 different species of Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi were isolated from rhizosphere of teak (Tectona grandis) among these Glomusand Aculosporafound in dominant species and seedlings inoculated with combination of Arbuscular fungi had good quality seedlings and increased shoot height compared to with individual AM fungus in Tectona grandis[68].

6.3 Role of bio-inoculants on plant growth and metabolites

Leucaena leucocephalaseedlings were inoculated with different types of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi found that the collar diameter increment of between 18 and 123% [66]. Similarly, Pterocarpus indicusinoculated with vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi improve the shoot diameter [69], root collar diameter in sweet gum seedlings by 268% [70]. Feronia elephantumwith AM fungi (Glomus fasciculatum) increase the plant growth especially root length and was recorded the root length increment was up to 84% [30]. Similarly shoot length was higher in Samanea saman[67] Mycorrhiza colonization also protect the roots from the soil pathogens [71]. AM fungi significantly increase the net photosynthesis by increasing total chlorophyll and carotenoid contents ultimately increasing carbohydrate accumulation. The chlorophyll content, fresh weight and leaf area are higher in mycorrhizal plants than in non-mycorrhizal plants but differences are significant only under draught stress conditions [72]. In mycorrhizal infected groundnut roots, high concentrations of ortho-hydroxy phenols were present. This type of phenols has been known to play an important role in plant disease resistance [73]. Inoculation of AM fungi is enhancing the plant quality by stimulating the synthesis of secondary metabolites which can be important for plant tolerance to abiotic and biotic stresses [74]. According to Morandi et al. [75] the Phenolic substances, such as phytotoxins are synthesized when the root is infected by a pathogen. They are non-specific toxic substances, which can be considered to play a role in disease resistance. Kapoor et al. [76] observed a significant increase in the density of glandular trichomes in the medicinal plant Artemisia annuafollowing inoculation with the AM fungi G. macrocarpumand G. fasciculatumcontributing to enhance artemisinin content in the plants.

The chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, total chlorophyll and Carotenoid contents increased in mycorrhizal seedlings compared with non-mycorrhizal tree seedlings of Cassia siamea, Delonix regia, Erythrina variegata, Samanea samanand Sterculia foetida[77]. A significant enhancement in biochemical parameters like total chlorophyll content, soluble protein and NRase activity in Pongamia pinnataseedling 10.7, 48.5 and 43.6% increase over control with the combined inoculation of Rhizobium, Phosphobacteria and AM fungi [78]. Similarly, an increase in chlorophyll content and soluble protein was observed in Ziziphus mauritianawhen inoculated with AM fungi [79] and Dalbergia sissooinoculated with Rhizobium and mycorrhizae [80] and in Shola species inoculated with Azospirillum + Phosphobacteria and AM fungi [22]. Eucalyptus seedlings inoculated with mixed Glomus mosseae, Trichoderma virideand Glomus fasciculatumincreases the phosphorous content of shoot and root over control. Then increased rate of P uptake and inflow in roots is regarded as the major contribution of AM infection [81]. The AM colonization increased initially up to 45 days but decreased thereafter [82].

6.4 Effect of AM fungi on growth and nutrient content

The fundamental importance of the mycorrhizal associations in restoration and to improve the revegetation is well recognized [83]. Arbuscular mycorrhiza colonized plants showed significant increment in height, biomass production and girth as compared to non mycorrhizal plats. Growth, biomass and P uptake were higher were higher on dual inoculation of G. fasciculatumand G. macrocarpumas compared to uninoculated tree species under both nursery and field condition. Tropical trees inoculated with AM fungi have shown increased nutrient uptake and growth, withstanding the transplant stock, hostile conditions like drought resistance and survival of Acacia holosericea[84]. Casuarina equisetifoliaseedlings inoculated with AM (Glomus fasciculatum) increased shoot and root biomass [2324], Eucalyptus tereticornis[85] Tectona grandis[68] Santalum album, Acacia auriculiformis, Grevillea robusta, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Bombax ceiba[86, 87] and Albizia lebbeck[88].

Inoculation with Glomus mosseaeand G. fasciculatumalong with other nitrogen fixing and phosphate solubilizing organism improved the quality and growth of neem seedlings, owing to greater absorption of nutrients, under nursery conditions in unsterilized soil [89], AM fungus (G. fasciculatum) and Rhizobium treated Acacia niloticaseedlings recorded an increase in shoot and root biomass [90]. Beneficial effects of AMF, such as growth promotion, increased root branching, lengths of lateral roots, specific root length and root diameter [91], protection against pathogens [92] and tolerance to abiotic stresses [93], could be due to positive interactions between mycorrhizae and associated microorganisms such as Pseudomonas, Arthrobacter and Burkholderia in a particular environment [94].

Combined inoculation of Glomus fasciculatumand Rhizobium on the growth of Prosopis julifloraseedlings showed better growth on shoot length and biomass. It was found that G. fasciculatum,Scutellospora sp., G. leptotichumand G. mosseasewere most efficient for Dalbergia sissoo, Acacia auriculiformis, A. niloticaand Dalbergia latifolia,respectively, and increase in plant biomass and height was to the extent of 34 and 24%, respectively, in Dalbergia sissoo, 126 and 50% in A. auriculiformis, 48 and 24% in Dalbergia latifoliaand 100 and 112% in Acacia nilotica[95].

Advertisement

7. Trichoderma

The genus Trichoderma is the most common fungi found in all climatic condition. It can be isolated in all type of soil. It is also found in plant root, rotting wood, plant litter and seed. Fungi of the genus Trichoderma are important biocontrol agents (BCAs) of several soil borne phytopathogens. Trichoderma use different mechanisms for the control of phytopathogens which include mycoparasitism, competition for space and nutrients, secretion of antibiotics and fungal cell wall degrading enzymes. In addition, Trichodermacould have a stimulatory effect on plant growth 48 as a result of modification of soil conditions.

Shoot length and fresh weight were more in Eucalyptus salignaseedlings inoculated with Trichoderma viride. The greater height and fresh weight of Acacia niloticainoculated with Trichoderma due to the Trichoderma species produce growth hormones which result in better growth of shoots. Trichodermasp. co-inoculated with Azotobactersp. and Bacillus megateriumshowed a significant increase on the growth of Teak and Indian red wood under nursery condition [96]. The growth promoting substances are known to cause enhanced cell division and root development [97]. Similarly, many strains of Bacillus pseudomonas and Trichoderma have been implicated in improvement of overall growth of many crop plants [98].

Advertisement

8. Rhizobium

Rhizobium belongs to family Rhizobiaceae and the bacteria have the ability to reduce N2 and thereby “fix” atmospheric nitrogen using the enzyme nitrogenase. It colonizes the roots of species legumes to form tumor like growths called root nodules, which act as biofactories of ammonia production (Figure 1). The process of biological nitrogen fixation was discovered the Dutch microbiologist Martinus Beijerinck. Rhizobia (e.g., Rhizobium, Mesorhizobium, Sinorhizobium) fix atmospheric nitrogen or dinitrogen, N2 into inorganic nitrogen compounds such as ammonium, NH4, Which is then incorporated into amino acids, which can be utilized by the plant. Plants cannot fix nitrogen on their own, but need it in one form or another to make amino acids and protein. Because legumes form nodules with rhizobia, they have high levels of nitrogen available to them. Rhizobium is a soil habitat bacterium, which is able to colonize the legume roots and fixes the atmospheric nitrogen. Rhizobium associated with nodulated legume trees have an outstanding potential for fixing atmospheric nitrogen (Sesbania cannabinaand Leucaena leucocephala) can fix up to 75–584 kg N ha−1 yr−1 [99]. In recent year use of Rhizobium culture has been routinely recommended as an input in legume tree species cultivation. Rhizobium helps to boost up the tree growth by insoluble nutrients available for plant. Seedling treated with Rhizobium biofertilizer found to remarkable increase in growth and nodulation of D. sissoo[100], A. nilotica[26] Albizziasp. [101].

Figure 1.

(a) Rhizobium root nodule, (b)Frankiaroot nodule, (c) AM fungi infection, (d) AM fungi spore, (e) phosphate solobilizing bacteriaBacillussp., (f)Paenibacillus polymyxa, (g)Azospirillum brasilense.

8.1 Rhizobium with helper microbes

High nitrogen yield was estimated in the Pongamia pinnataseedling inoculated with Rhizobium + Phosphobacteria + VAM fungi [78]. Increased N content in the plant sample of various tree seedling, co-inoculated with different biofertilizers [102]. Similarly increase in biomass production due to VAM fungi inoculation with Acaciasp. [103] and in Albizziasp. [104]. Rhizobium inoculation + PSB with 25% N significantly increase the average 53 nodule no./seedling was followed by only Rhizobium with 25% N (38 nodule/seedling) inoculation in Acacia niloticashoot length increased from 58.50 to 78.75 cm, collar diameter from 5.05 to 6.15 mm and nodulation increased 0.071 to 0.342 g/seedling [105].

8.2 Azospirillumand Rhizobiuminteraction

Dual inoculation of Azospirillumand Rhizobiumwith legume plant has been found to increase plant-growth when compared with single inoculations. Azospirillumis considered a helper bacteria to Rhizobiumby stimulating nodulation, nodule function, and possibly plant metabolism. Similarly, phytohormones produced by Azospirillumpromoted epidermal-cell differentiation in root hairs that increased the number of potential sites for rhizobial infection and more nodule development [106]. Dual inoculation of AM fungi with Rhizobiumimproved nodulation, plant dry weight, N and P contents of Leucaena leucocephalain a P deficient soil compared to single inoculation with either organism [107] .

8.3 Azotobacterplant interaction

Azotobacteris a free living (non-symbiotic), aerobic, nitrogen fixing organism and these gram negative bacteria belongs to family Azotobacteriaceae. There are seven species of Azotobacterviz. A. beijerinckii, A. chroococcum, A. vinelandii, A. paspali, A. agilis, A. insignisand A. macrocytogenes. A. chroococcumappeared more in acidic soils and arable soils while A. beijerinckiiin neutral and alkali soils. Apart from nitrogen, this organism is capable of producing antibacterial and antifungal compounds, hormones and siderophore [108]. Individual or combined inoculations stimulated the plant growth and significantly increased the concentrations of indole 3-acetic acid (IAA), P, Mg, N, and total soluble sugars in agri crop. Bioinoculants co-inoculation of nitrogen fixing organism Azotobacterand phosphate solubilizing microorganisms Bacillus megateriumshowed a significant increase on the growth of teak and India red wood under nursery condition [96].

Azotobacterinoculated strawberry plants attained maximum height (24.92 cm) more number of leaves per plant (26.29), more leaf area (96.12 cm2), number of runners per plant (18.70), heavier fruit (10.02gm), more fruit length (35.9 mm), and more fruit breadth (22.91 mm) as compared to all other treatment [109]. Similarly, combined application of manure + Azotobacter + wood ash + phosphorous solubilizing bacteria + oil cake improved significantly fruit diameter (3.11 cm), length (3.95 cm), volume (20.397 cm3), weight (11.11 g), total sugars (7.95%), total soluble solids (9.01’B), acidity (0.857), TSS:acidity ratio (11:12) and yield (238.95 g/plant) [110].

Advertisement

9. Frankia with actinorrhizal plants

Frankia is a genus of Actinomycetes, belongs to family Frankiaceae and an ability to fix the atmospheric nitrogen in symbiotic association with Casuarinaspecies in tropical and temperate environmental condition. These microorganisms usually invade root hairs of Casuarina and developing within cortical cells in lobes of the resultant nodules. Frankia are able to convert the nitrogen gas in the atmosphere into amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. Frankia exchange nitrogen for carbohydrates from the plant. As the plant drop organic matter, or when the plants die, the nitrogen from their tissues is made available to other plants and organisms. This process of accumulating atmospheric nitrogen in plants and recycling it through organic matter is the major source of nitrogen in tropical ecosystems. Various agroforestry practices such as alley cropping, improved fallow, and green manure/cover cropping exploit this natural fertility process by using nitrogen fixing plants.

Casuarina equisetifoliaseedling inoculated with Frankia strains showed improved growth, biomass and tissue N content over control seedlings [24, 111, 112]. Nitrogenase activity of Frankia strains were significantly (p < 0.05) and negatively correlated with a tissue N content [111]. Similarly, under nursery experiments, the growth and biomass of C. equisetifoliarooted stem cuttings inoculated with Frankia showed three times higher growth and biomass than uninoculated control and improved growth in height (8.8 m), stem girth (9.6 cm) and tissue nitrogen content (3.3 mg/g) than uninoculated controls in field condition [112]. Frankia inoculated Casuarina seedlings planted in farm forestry improve the tree growth and biomass in the field condition [2, 112] and improve the nutrient cycling of actinorrhizal plants through high amount of litter production and decomposition [113]. Combined inoculation of Azospirillum, Phosphobacteria, AM fungi and Frankiaproduced excellent growth and biomass of C. equisetifoliaseedlings due to co-inoculation with Frankiathrough improved nitrogen fixation [22, 114] (Table 1).

Advertisement

10. Methods of inoculation

10.1 Inoculation methods of Azospirillum, Rhizobiumand phosphobacteria

Seed or nursery stage is best for application of bio-fertilizers. Suitable methods for forestry species is seed coating and inoculation in polythene bag. Two grams of carrier culture (10−8 cfu/g) can be applied in rhizosphere of seedlings in the polythene bags in the nursery.

Name of the speciesAzospirillum/AzotobaterFrankia/RhizobiumPhosphate solubilizing bacteriaAM fungiCombination of bio-fertilizersReference
CDSLBMCDSLBMCDSLBMCDSLBMCDSLBM
Casuarina equisetifoliaL.14.25519.617.623236.8406111819.52363.562.2115.0[22]
Acacia niloticaL.61.060261255756NANANA966048236.3131.2156.8[26]
Azadirachta indica(A) Juss1.12.343.2NANANANA5.53.740.77.085.40.6716.07.49[27]
Moringa oleiferaL.7522276NANANA5.04617NANANA5.611.7176.5[25]
Mangifera indica(L.) Delile12.0/13.312.7/ 13.7NANANANANANA14.7314.5NA11.812.9NA[117]
Delonix regia(Hook.) Raf.5.8/4.25.2/ 4.317.8/5.8NANANANANANA3.52.420.913.07.921.2[28]
Tectona grandisL.f.−−/69.8−−/ 0.65−−/28.2NANANA31.70.65106.86.37.237.4114.326.8258.9[116]
Samanea saman(Jacq.) Merr.60.020.635.8NANANA54.46.6819.578.916.930.9108.646.974.9[67]
Feronia elephantumL.71.439.555.5NANANA48.86.6815.982.920.741.7122.847.092.4[30]
Gmelina arborea(Roxb.)11.613.938.8NANANA11.98.827.511.99.4363.425.621.9166.4[118]

Table 1.

Growth and biomass increases (percentage increased over control) of horticulture and forestry crops treated with bio-inoculants.

CD, collar diameter; SL, shoot length; BM, biomass; NA, not applicable.

10.2 Inoculation with seeds

Inoculation requirement varies from the size of the seeds. Normally 200 g of lignite/peat soil based culture (108 cfu/g) is need for every 8–10 kg of seeds of the tree species. A slurry is formed by mixing the inoculant with cooled rice gruel (250 ml). The required quantity of seeds is added in the slurry and mixed thoroughly so that each seed is coated with the black colored inoculant. The treated seeds are then shade dried for 30 min and sown.

10.3 Inoculation in the nursery mother bed

Two hundred grams of lignite based carrier culture of Rhizobiumor Azospirillum(108 cfu/g) is required for 4 m × 1 m mother bed. It has to be spread uniformly and mixed thoroughly before sowing of seeds.

10.4 Seed treatment

Ten percent sugar or gum arabic solution or rice porridge is to be prepared to serve as a sticker for culture cells applied to seeds. This solution is to be sprinkled on required seeds and then the seeds spread on a polythene sheet and mixed uniformly. The peat based culture is sprinkled uniformly over the sticker-coated seeds and mixed simultaneously. After treatment the seeds are air dried in 1 h then the seed can be dipped in nursery mother bed.

10.5 Dipping seedlings

In case of transplanted seedlings, the seedlings from the nursery beds are uprooted and tipped in a suspension of biofertilizers before planting.

10.6 Inoculation in the nursery seedlings

Two gram of lignite based culture (108 cfu/g) is added to rhizosphere of the seedlings a week after transplanting. In the case of AM 5 g of vermiculate based culture can be used. The cultures may be mixed together and applied near the root zone. If necessary, the inoculant may be made bulk by mixing with the finely powered farm yard manure or sand for easy application.

10.7 Inoculation of out plantings

Ten grams of lignite based culture (108 cfu/g) is required per seedling which are to be planted in the field directly from the mother bed, in the form of naked root seedlings. Otherwise, 200 g of lignite based culture can be mixed with 10 l of water, and roots of seedlings can be dipped in it before planting.

11. Advantages of biofertilizers

  • Biofertilizers have number of advantages than synthetic fertilizers. Bio fertilizers can facilitate not only supply of nutrients, but also produces vitamins and plant growth hormones. They prevent soil erosion by producing capsular polysaccharides and also control plant pathogens.

  • Biofertilizers, will be isolated from the rhizosphere soil of host plant hence huge amount need not be spent for mother culture. It can be cultivated under normal laboratory condition using conventional media and fermentors within short span of time. Production method is very simple and production cost is cheaper than chemical fertilizers.

  • Chemical fertilizers are required in huge quantity for land application. The physical optimum levels for getting the maximum grain yield for the medium duration rice hybrid CORH2 was found to be 151:66:57 kg N, P2O5 and K2O ha−1 [115]. But in case of biofertilizers, 1 g of carrier based inoculum of Azospirillum and phosphobacterium contain with a population load of 10−9 and 10−8 and approximately 12,500 infective propagule/10 g of soil [22]. Hence, very less quantity is sufficient and it may get multiplied into many fold as the optimum environmental conditions in the nursery and field. As the propagules multiply in the field they need not be applied repeatedly.

  • It helps to improve the seed germination and induces the healthy seed emergence due to production of growth promoting hormones, gibberellins and cytokinin-like biologically active substances. Biofertilizers promote better root formation in trees for efficient absorption and assimilation of water and nutrients.

  • Biofertilizers are involved in the litter decomposition and the breakdown of minerals into available form to plants. It directly facilitates the function of rhizoids in terms of absorption and translocation of minerals and water.

  • Biofertilizers do not pollute the soil, whereas excess application of chemical fertilizers creates soil pollution. Biofertilizers are effective in promoting and maintaining the soil fertility which helps a better balance in the plantation forest ecosystem in terms of nutrient availability and cycling of nutrients.

  • Due to the strong colonization of biocontrol microorganism and their secretory substances, the tree plants cultivated under this pattern will exhibit a strong resistance against an array of infectious disease caused by plant pathogens.

11.1 Limitations of bio-fertilizer utilization in forestry and horticulture

Apart from the advantages, biofertilizers have certain limitations. Lack of awareness on benefits of bio inoculants among the farmers and tree growers. Adequate availability and quality assurance of bioinoculants are being the limiting factors. Competition between native and introduced microbial population in the cultivated field also identified as a limiting factor. Hence, a preliminary analysis on the cultivable land about the native microflora, physico-chemical parameters is essential to overcome such limitations.

12. Conclusion

Bio-inoculants are renewable, cost effective, eco-friendly and economically viable population of beneficial microorganisms providing an alternate source of plant nutrients, thus increasing farm income by providing extra yields and reducing input cost. Bio-inoculants increase crop yield by 20–30%, replace synthetic fertilizers of N & P by 25%. Stimulate plant growth, activate soil biologically, restore natural fertility and provide protection against drought and some soil borne plant pathogens. Application of Bio-fertilizers in combined form in Horticulture and Forestry will play an important role in improving the soil fertility by supply of macro and micronutrients, organic carbon, accumulation of soil enzymes, suppression of plant pathogen by bioactive substances. This will have direct impact on socio-economy of tree growing farmers, maintain sustainability in natural soil ecosystem, wood and food crops availability in future. Therefore, the development of more efficient and sustainable agriculture strategies, guarantied food supply for an expanding world population and minimizing damage to the environment is one of the greatest challenges for humankind today. It is inferred that under appropriate management, the use of more efficient bioinoculants, co-inoculation with other bioinoculants lead to an increased growth and biomass of tree species in nutrient impoverished soil.

References

  1. 1.Barea JM, Aczon R, Azcon-Aguilar C. Mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. In: Varma A, Abbott L, Werner D, Hampp R, editors. Plant Surface Microbiology. Heideberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2004. pp. 351-371
  2. 2.Rajendran K, Sugavanam V, Devaraj P. Assessment of beneficial microbial population inCasuarina equisetifoliaplantation. Asian Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Environmental Sciences. 1999;1(3-4):143-147
  3. 3.Lynch JM. The Rhizosphere. Chichester, England: Wiley-Interscience; 1990
  4. 4.Tilak KVPR, Ranganayaki N, Pal KK, De R, Saxena AK, Shekhar NC, et al. Diversity of plant growth and soil health supporting bacteria. Current Science. 2005;89:136-150
  5. 5.Yadav SP. Effective micro-organisms, its efficacy in soil improvement and crop growth. In: Sixth International Conference on Kyusei, Nature Farming Pretoria, South Africa. 1999. pp. 28-31
  6. 6.Wu SC, Cao ZH, LI Z, Cheung KC Wong MH. Effects of biofertilizer containing N-fixer, P and K solubilizers and AM fungi on maize growth: A greenhouse trial. Geoderma. 2005;125:155-166
  7. 7.Burd GI, Dixon DG, Click BR. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria that decrease heavy metal toxicity in plants. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 2000;33:237-245
  8. 8.Mrkovack N, Milic V. Use ofAzotobacter chrooccocumas potential useful in agricultural allocation. Annales de Microbiologie. 2001;51:145-158
  9. 9.Bharathi R, Vivekananthan R, Harish S, Ramanathan A, Samiyappan R. Rhizobacteria-based bio-formulations for the management of fruit rot infection in chillies. Crop Protection. 2004;23:835-843
  10. 10.Cattelan A, Hartel P, Fuhrman JJ. Screening for plant growth promoting rhizobacteria to promote early soybean growth. Soil Science. 1999;63:1670-1680
  11. 11.Bashan Y, de Bashan LE. Plant growth-promoting. In: Hillel D, editor. Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment. Vol. 1, 2200. Oxford: Elsevier; 2005
  12. 12.Perrig D, Boiero L, Masciarelli O, Penna C, Cassen F, Luna M. Plant growth promoting compounds produced by two agronomically important strains ofAzospirillum brasilenseand their implications for inoculants formulation. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2007
  13. 13.Magalhaes FM, Baldani JI, Souto SM, Kuykendall JR, Dobereiner J. A acid-tolerantAzospirillumspecies. Journal of Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 1983;55:417-430
  14. 14.Tarrand JJ, Krieg NR, Dobereiner J. A taxonomic study of theSpirillum lipoferumgroup with description of a new genus,Azospirillumgen nov and two species.Azospirillum lipoferum(Beijerink) comb nov andAzospirillum brasilensep nov. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 1978;24:967-980
  15. 15.Eckert B, Weber OB, Kirchhof G, Halbritter A, Stoffels M, Harmann A.Azospirillum doebereineraesp. nov., a nitrogen-fixing bacterium associated with the C (4)-grass Miscanthus. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2001;51:17-26
  16. 16.Reinhold B, Hurek T, Fendrik I, Pot B, Gillis M, Kersters K, et al.Azospirillum halopraeferenssp.nov., a nitrogen-fixing organism associated with roots of Kallar grass (Leptochloa fusca) (L.) Kunth. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. 1987;37:43-51
  17. 17.Khammas KM, Ageron E, Grimont PAD, Kaiser P.Azospirillum irakensesp. nov., a nitrogen fixing bacterium associated with rice roots and rhizosphere. Soil Research in Microbiology. 1989;140:679-693
  18. 18.Skerman VBD, Sly LI, Williamson M.Conglomeromonas largomobilisgene. Nov. sp. nov., a sodium sensitive, mixed flagellated organism from fresh water. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. 1983;33:300-308
  19. 19.Okon Y.Azospirillumas potential inoculants for agriculture. Trends in Biotechnology. 1985;3:223-228
  20. 20.Sumner ME. Crop responses toAzospirilluminoculation. In: Stewart BA, editor. Advances in Soil Sciences. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1990. pp. 53-123
  21. 21.Sekar I, Vanangamudi K, Suresh KK. Effect of biofertilizers on the seedling biomass, VAM colonization, enzyme activity and phosphorus uptake in the Shola tree species. My Forest. 1995;31(4):21-26
  22. 22.Rajendran K, Sugavanam V, Devaraj P. Effect of biofertilizers on quality seedling production ofCasuarina equisetifolia. Journal of Tropical Forest Science. 2003;15(1):82-96
  23. 23.Saravanan TS, Rajendran K, Santhaguru K. Selection of suitable biofertilizers for production of quality seedlings ofCasuarina equisetifolia(Forst.) using decomposed coir pith compost in root trainers. Asian Journal of Experimental Biological Sciences. 2012;3(4):752-761
  24. 24.Rodriguez-Barrueco C, Cervantes E, Subba Rao NS, Rodriguez-Caceres E. Growth promoting effect ofAzospirillum brasilenseonCasuarina cunninghamianaMiq seedlings. Plant and Soil. 1991;135:121-124
  25. 25.Kasthuri Rengamani S, Jothibasu M, Rajendran K. Effect of bioinoculants on quality seedlings production of drumstick (Moringa oleiferaL.). Journal of Non-Timber Forest Products. 2006;13(1):41-46
  26. 26.Rajendran K, Jeyashree R. Effect of biofertilizers on quality seedlings production ofAcacia nilotica. Journal of Non-Timber Forest Products. 2007;14(1):5-11
  27. 27.Rajendran K, Meenakshisundaram M. Microbial inoculants for quality seedlings production of Neem (Azadirachta indicaA. Juss.). Journal of Non-Timber Forest Products. 2007;14(4):225-260
  28. 28.Meenakshi Sundaram M, Santhaguru K, Rajendran K. Effects of bioinoculants on quality seedlings production ofDelonix regiain tropical nursery conditions. Asian Journal of Biochemical and Pharmaceutical Research. 2011;1(1):98-107
  29. 29.Rajendran K. Effect of bio inoculants on seedling growth, biochemical changes and nutrient uptake ofErythrin aindicaL., in semi-arid region of South India. Journal of Biometrics & Biostatistics. 2012;3(2):134-140
  30. 30.Mohan E, Rajendran K. Effect of plant growth-promoting microorganisms on quality seedling production ofFeronia elephantum(Corr.) in semi-arid region of southern India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2014;3(7):103-116
  31. 31.Kannan M, Rajendran K. A sustainable agro-biotechnology for quality seedling production ofJatropha curcasL. in tropical nursery conditions. International Journal of Current Research and Academic Review. 2015;3(2):92-103
  32. 32.Rajendran K, Deveraj P. Biomass and nutrient distribution and their return ofCasuarina equisetifoliainoculated with biofertilizers in farm land. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2004;26:235-249
  33. 33.Ravikumar S, Shanthy S, Kalaiarasi A, Sumaya S. Effect of halophilic phosphobacteria onAvicennia officinalisseedlings. Annals of Biological Research. 2010;1(4):254-260
  34. 34.Patten C, Glick B. Bacterial biosynthesis of indole 3-acetic acid. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 1996;42:207-220
  35. 35.Rademacher W. Gibberellin formation in microorganisms. Plant Growth Regulation. 1994;15:303-314
  36. 36.Strzeczyk E, Kamper M, Li C. Cytocinin-like-substances and ethylene production byAzospirillumin media with different carbon sources. Microbiological Research. 1994;149:55-60
  37. 37.Bashan Y, Bustillos J, Leyva L, Hernandez JP, Bacilio M. Increase in auxiliary photoprotective photosynthetic pigments in wheat seedlings induced byAzospirillum brasilense. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2006;42:279-285
  38. 38.Palleroni NJ. Family I. Pseudomonadaceae. In: Krieg NR, Holt JG, editors. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Vol. 1. Baltimore, US: Williams and Wilkins; 1984. pp. 141-199
  39. 39.Waschkies C, Schropp A, Marschner H. Relations between grapevine replant disease and root colonization of grapevine (Vitissp.) byFluorescent pseudomonadsand endomycorrhizal fungi. Plant and Soil. 1994;162:219-227
  40. 40.Ames RN, Reid CPP, Ingham ER. Rhizosphere bacterial population responses to root colonization by a vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus. The New Phytologist. 1984;95:555-563
  41. 41.Glick BR, Karaturovic DM, Newell PC. A novel procedure for rapid isolation of plant growth promotingPseudomonads. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 1995;41:533-536
  42. 42.Crowley DE, Wang YC, Reid CPP, Szansiszlo PJ. Mechanism of iron acquisition from siderophores by microorganisms and plants. Plant and Soil. 1991;130:179-198
  43. 43.Weller DM. Biological control of soil-borne plant pathogens in the rhizosphere with bacteria. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 1988;26:379-407
  44. 44.Kapulnik Y. Plant growth promotion by rhizsphere bacteria. In: Waisel Y, Eshel A, Kafkafi U, editors. Plant Roots. The Hidden Half. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1996. pp. 769-781
  45. 45.Glick BR. The enhancement of plant growth by free-living bacteria. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 1995;41:109-117
  46. 46.Deacon JW. Modern Mycology. London, England: Blackwell Science; 1997
  47. 47.Quilambo OA. The vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2003;2:539-546
  48. 48.Smith SE, Read DJ. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. London: Academic Press; 1997. p. 605
  49. 49.Gildon A, Tinker PB. Interactions of vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal infections and heavy metals in plants. I. The effect of heavy metals on the development of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizas. The New Phytologist. 1983;95:247-261
  50. 50.Andrade G, Linderman RG, Berthlenfalvay GJ. Bacterial associations with the mycorrhizosphere and hyphosphere of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungusGlomus mosseae. Plant and Soil. 1998;202:79-87
  51. 51.Wang B, Qiu YL. Phylogenetic distribution and evolution of mycorrhizas in land plants. Mycorrhiza. 2006;16:299-363
  52. 52.Miller RM, Jastrow JD. Mycorrhizal fungi influence soil structure. In: Kapulnik Y, Douds DD Jr, editors. Arbuscular Mycorrhizas: Physiology and Function. Kluwer Academic Publication; 2000. pp. 3-18
  53. 53.Stutz JC, Coperman R, Martin CA, Morton JB. Patterns of species composition and distribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in arid regions of southwestern North America and Namibia, Africa. Canadian Journal of Botany. 2000;78:237-245
  54. 54.Nowak J. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and organic fertilization on growth, lowering, nutrient uptake, photosynthesis and transpiration of geranium (Pelargonium hortorumL.H. Bailey “Tango Orange”). Symbiosis. 2004;37:259-266
  55. 55.Walley FL, Germida JJ. Response of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) to interactions betweenPseudomonasspecies andGlomus clarumNT4. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 1997;24:365-371
  56. 56.Singh R, Gangwar SP, Singh D, Singh R, Pandey R, Kalra A. Medicinal plantColeus forskoliiBriq, disease and management (mini review). Medicinal Plants. 2011;3:1-7
  57. 57.Ravnskov S, Nybroe O, Jakobsen I. Influence of an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus onPseudomonas fluorescensDF57 in rhizosphere and hyphosphere soil. The New Phytologist. 1999;142:113-122
  58. 58.Marschner P, Crowley DE, Higashi RM. Root exudation and physiological status of a root-colonizing fluorescent pseudomonad in mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal pepper (Capsicum annuumL.). Plant and Soil. 1997;189(1):11-20
  59. 59.Marschner H, Dell B. Nutrient uptake in mycorrhizal symbiosis. Plant and Soil. 1994;159:89-102
  60. 60.Mazzola M. The potential use of natural and genetically engineered fluorescentPseudomonasspp. as biological control agents. In: SubbaRao NS, Dommergues YR, editors. Microbial interactions in agriculture and forestry. Sci Phymouth. 1999;1:195-218
  61. 61.Edwards SG, Young JPW, Fitter AH. Interactions betweenPseudomonas fluorescensbiocontrol agents andGlomus mosseae, an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus, with in the rhizosphere. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 1998;166:297-303
  62. 62.Galleguillors C, Aguirre C, Barea JM, Azcon R. Growth promoting effect of twoSinorhizobium melilotistrains (a wild type and its genetically modified derivative) on anon-legume plant species in specific interaction with two arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Plant Science. 2000;159:57-63
  63. 63.Mohan V, Neelam V, Singh YP. Distribution of VAM fungi in nurseries and plantation of Neem tree (Azadirachta indica) in arid zone of Rajasthan. The Indian Forester. 1995;121:1069-1076
  64. 64.Mohan E, Rajendran K. Assessment of microbial diversity in non-rhizosphere soil of forest nurseries in Southern Tamil Nadu, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2014;3(6):454-458
  65. 65.Santhaguru K, Gladis Posimalar SB, Karunakaran R. Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae in tree legumes and its rhizospheric soils in Alagar hills. The Indian Forester. 1995;121:817-822
  66. 66.Huang RS, Smith WK, Post RS. Influence of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza on growth, water relations and leaf orientation inLeucaena leucocephala(Lam'.) DeWit. New Philologist. 1985;99:229-243
  67. 67.Mohan E, Rajendran K. Effect of beneficial bioinoculants on the growth of monkey pod tree (Samanea saman) in nursery condition. Journal of Plant Development Sciences. 2012;4(3):379-382
  68. 68.Verma R, Jamaluddin K. Association and activity of arbuscular mycorrhizae of teak (Tectona grandis) in Central India. The Indian Forester. 1995;121(6):533-539
  69. 69.Castillo ET. Physiological responses of Narra (Pterocarpus indicuswild.) inoculated with VA Mycorrhiza and rhizobium in macolod soils [PhD thesis]. U.P. Los Banos; 1993
  70. 70.Kormanik PP, Bryan WC, Schultz RC. Effects of three vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on sweetgum seedlings from nine mother trees. Forest Science. 1981;27(2):327-335
  71. 71.Perrin R. Interactions between mycorrhizae and diseases caused by soil borne fungi. Soil Use and Management. 1990;6:189-195
  72. 72.Morte A, Lovisola C, Schubert A. Effect of drought stress on growth and water relations of the mycorrhizal associationHelianthemum almeriense-Terfezia clavery. Mycorrhiza. 2000;10:115-119
  73. 73.Krishna KR, Bagyaraj DJ. Phenolics of mycorrhizal and uninfected groundnut var. MGS.7. Current Research. 1986;15:51-52
  74. 74.Gianinazzi S, Gollotte A, Binet MN, van Tuinen D, Redecker D, Wipf D. Agroecology: The key role of arbuscular mycorrhizas in ecosystem services. Mycorrhiza. 2010;20:519-530
  75. 75.Morandi D, Bailey JA, Gianinazzi-Pearson V. Isoflavonoid accumulation in soybean roots infected with vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Physiological Plant Pathology. 1984;24:357-364
  76. 76.Kapoor R, Chaudhary V, Bhatnagar AK. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhiza and phosphorus application on artemisinin concentration inArtemisia annuaL. Mycorrhiza. 2007;17:581-587
  77. 77.Manoharan PT, Pandi M, Shanmugaiah V, Gomathinayagam S, Balasubramanian N. Effect of vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus on the physiological and biochemical changes of five different tree seedlings grown under nursery conditions. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2008;19:3431-3436
  78. 78.Vanangamudi K, Venkatech AV, Mallika V, Ravichandran, Rai RSV. Impact of biofertilizers on morphological attributes in pungam (Pongamia pinnata(L.) Pierre) seedlings. Tropical Agriculture Research and Extension. 1998;1:7-11
  79. 79.Mathur N, Vyas A. Physiological changes inZiziphus mauritianaby different VAM fungi. The Indian Forester. 1996;122(6):501-505
  80. 80.Niranjan R, Banwarilal S, Rao M. Studies on the effect of Rhizobium and endomycorrhizal interaction inDalbergia sissoo. In: Proceedings of a National Conference on Mycorrhiza. Hisar Agricultural University, Hisar, India; Feb. 14-16. 1990. pp. 205-207
  81. 81.Kumar R, Jalali BL, Chand H. Influence of vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on growth and nutrient uptake in chickpea. Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology. 2002;32(1):11-15
  82. 82.De Olieveiera VA, Schmidt VDB, Bellei M. Patterns of arbuscular and ectomycorrhizal colonization ofEucalyptus dunniiin Southen Brazil. Annsls of Diseases Sciences Forest. 1997;54:473-481
  83. 83.Reynolds HL, Vogelsang KM, Hartley AE, Bever JD, Schultz PA. Variable responses of old-field perennials to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and phosphorus source. Oecologia. 2006;147:348-358
  84. 84.Duponnois R, Plenchette C. A mycorrhiza helper bacterium enhances ectomycorrhizal and endomycorrhizal symbiosis of AustralianAcaciaspecies. Mycorrhiza. 2003;13:85-91
  85. 85.Balasubramanian A, Ravichandran VK. Biofertilizer—An alternative source on nutrients for sustainable productivity of trees. Journal of Ecobiology. 1997;9(3):203-206
  86. 86.Nagaveni HC, Ananthapadmanabha HS, Singh A, Chodankar DN. Prospectus for afforestation in mine dumps using VAM fungi. My Forest. 1997;33(2):465-468
  87. 87.Nagaveni HC, Ananthapadmanabha HS, Vijayalakshmi G, Somashekar PV. Comparative effect of inorganic fertilizer and VAM fungi on growth of teak plants. My Forest. 1998;34(1):697-700
  88. 88.Pavan KP. Influence of bioinoculants on the growth ofAlbizia lebbeckin nursery condition. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2011;2:265-268
  89. 89.Muthukumar T, Udaiyan K, Rajeshkannan V. Response of Neem (Azadirachta indicaA. Juss) to indigenous arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, phosphate-solubilizing and asymbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria under tropical nursery conditions. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2001;34:417-426
  90. 90.Priya Rani M, Aggarwal A, Mehrotra RS. Growth responses inAcacia niloticainoculated with VAM fungus (Glomus fasciculatum),Rhizobiumsp andTrichoderma harzianum. Journal of Mycopathological Research. 1998;36(1):13-16
  91. 91.Koide RT. The physiology of the mycorrhizal plant. In: Tommerup IC, editor. Advances in Plant Pathology. New York: Academic Press; 1993. pp. 33-54
  92. 92.Sharma AK, Johri BN, Gianinazzi S. Vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizae in relation to plant diseases. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 1992;8:559-563
  93. 93.Gohre V, Paszkowski U. Contribution of the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis to heavy metal phytoremediation. Planta. 2006;223:1115-1122
  94. 94.Mansfeld-Giese K, Larsen J, Dker LB. Bacterial populations associated with mycelium of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungusGlomus intraradices. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2002;41:133-140
  95. 95.Uniyal K, Thapar HS. Growth responses inProsopis juliflorainoculated with VAM fungi andRhizobiumin sodic soil. Van Vigyan. 1995;33(344):182-184
  96. 96.Aditya B, Ghosh A, Chattopadhyay D. Co-inoculation effects of Nitogen fixing and phosphate solublising microorganisms on teak (Tectona grandis) and Indian redwood (Chukrasia tubularis). Journal of Biological Sciences. 2009;1:23-32
  97. 97.Arshad M, Frankenberger W T. Microbial production of plant growth regulators. In: Blaine F Jr, editor. Soil Microbial Ecology – Applications in Agricultural and Environmental Management Meeting. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1993
  98. 98.Eneback SA, Wel G, Kloepper JW. Effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacterial on lobly pine seedlings. Forest Science. 1998;44:139-144
  99. 99.Nutman PS. IBP field experiments on nitrogen fixation by nodulated legumes. In: Nutman PS, editor. Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation in Plants. London: Cambridge Univ. Press; 1976. pp. 211-237
  100. 100.Kumar A, Dash D, Jhariya MK. Impact of rhizobium on growth, biomass accumulation and nodulation inDalbergia sissoo. The BioScan. 2013;8(2):553-560
  101. 101.Chauhan YS, Pokhriyal TC. Nodulation and nitrogen fixation as influenced byRhizobiumand mycorrhizal inoculation inAlbizia lebbek(L.) Benth seedlings. Annals of Forestry. 2002;10:243-251
  102. 102.Sekar I. Response of certain Shola tree species to the inoculation of biofertilizers and application of growth stimulants under nursery conditions [M.Sc.(For.) thesis]. Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India: Tamil Nadu Agricultural University; 1992
  103. 103.Reena J, Bagyaraj DJ. Response ofAcacia niloticaandCalliandra calothyrsusto different VAM. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation. 1990;4:261-268
  104. 104.Purohit I, Prasad P, Nautiyal AR. Influence of rhizobial inoculation on nodulation and seedling growth in three nitrogen fixing tree species. Indian Journal of Forestry. 1995;18:337-340
  105. 105.Rakesh Kumar D, Dash SB, Gupta R, Soni, Anup KU, Singh Inoculation effects of rhizobium and phosphorous solubulizing bacteria on growth and nodulation ofAcacia nilotica. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017;6:2444-2453
  106. 106.Andreeva IN, Red’Kina TV, Ismailov SF. The involvement of indole acetic acid in the stimulation of rhizobium-legume symbiosis byAzospirillum brasilense. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology. 1993;40:901-906
  107. 107.Manjunath A, Bagyaraj DJ, Gopala gowala HS. Dual inoculation with VA mycorrhiza andRhizobiumis beneficial toLeucaena. Plant and Soil. 1984;78:445-448
  108. 108.Sharma AK. A Handbook of Organic Farming. Jodhpur: Agrobios India; 2002. p. 90
  109. 109.Rana RK, Chandel JS. Effect of biofertilizer and nitrogen on growth, yield and fruit quality of strawberry. Progressive Horticulture. 2003;35(1):25-30
  110. 110.Dadoshpor AJ, Mohammad. Impact of integrated organic nutrient handling on fruit yield quality of strawberry. Journal of Ornamental and Horticultural Plants. 2012;2(4):251-256
  111. 111.Karthikeyan A.Frankiastrains for improving growth, biomass and nitrogen fixation inCasuarina equisetifoliaseedlings. Journal of Tropical Forest Science. 2016;28(3):235-242
  112. 112.Saravanan TS, Rajendran K, Uma M, Chezhian P. Effect of bio inoculants on quality seedling production and nutrient uptake ofCasuarina equisetifoliaForst. grown in decomposed coir pith. In: Velu RK, editor. Microbiological Research in Agroecosystem Management. India: Springer; 2013. pp. 141-154
  113. 113.Karthikeyan A, Chandrasekaran K, Geetha M, Kalaiselvi R. Growth response ofCasuarina equisetifoliaForst. rooted stem cuttings to Frankia in nursery and field conditions. Journal of Biosciences. 2013;38:741-747
  114. 114.Uma M, Saravanan TS, Rajendran K. A sustainable bio-resourse technology for quality seedling production ofCasuarina equisetifoliain tropical nursery condition. The Indian Forester. 2012;138(12):1091-1099
  115. 115.Krishnakumar S, Nagarajan R, Natarajan SK, Jawahar D, Pandian BJ. NPK fertilizers for hybrid rice (Oryza sativaL.) productivity in Alfisols of southern districts of Tamil Nadu. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences. 2005;4:574-576
  116. 116.Kundu S, Datta P, Mishra J, Rashmi K, Ghosh B. Influence of biofertilizer and inorganic fertilizer in pruned mango orchard cv. Amrapali. Journal of Crop and Weed. 2011;7:100-103
  117. 117.Paroha S, Chandra KK, Yadav R. Integrated effect of biofertilizers (AM, azatobactor and PSB) fertilizers on growth and nutrient acquisition byTectona grandis. Journal of Tropical Forestry. 2009;25(1-2):52-61
  118. 118.Maharana R, Dobriyal MJ, Behera LK, Sukhadiya M. Enhancement of seedling vigour through biofertilizers application in gamhar (GmelinaarboreaRoxb.). International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2018;6(5):54-60

Written By

Easan Mohan and Kuppu Rajendran

Submitted: February 22nd, 2019Reviewed: May 30th, 2019Published: November 27th, 2019