Response of Sugarcane Varieties to Nitrogen and Phosphorus as Inoculated by Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus and PSB

Indi, D. V.

doi:10.9734/ijpss/2014/6246

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(Surendran and Vani, 2013). Similar results were reported by Indi et al (2014), Murumkar et al (2017) and Vajantha et al (2019).…”

Section: Seed Cane Yieldsupporting

confidence: 91%

Impact of Microbial Inoculants and Fertilizers on Nutrient Uptake and Yield of Sugarcane Short Crop

Raviteja¹,

Vajantha²,

Prasanthi³

et al. 2023

EEC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A field experiment was conducted at Agricultural Research Station, Perumallapalle, Tirupati, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Andhra Pradesh, India during 2021-22 to study the effect of microbial inoculants and fertilizers on nutrient uptake and yield of sugarcane short crop. The experiment was laid out in randomized block design with ten treatments and replicated thrice. The treatments consist of 75%, 100% and 125% RDF in combination of solid and liquid microbial inoculants (Gluconacetobacter, PSB and KSB). Data on N, P, K and S uptake by plant at different stages and yield were recorded. Results revealed that application of 100% RDF along with sett treatment with liquid Gluconacetobacter @ 1 lit ha-1, PSB @ 1 lit ha-1 and KSB @ 1 lit ha-1 resulted significantly the highest N, P, K and S uptake by plant and seed cane yield followed by 100% RDF + sett treatment with solid Gluconacetobacter @ 10 kg ha-1, PSB @ 1.25 kg ha-1 and KSB @ 1.25 kg ha-1.

show abstract

“…(Surendran and Vani, 2013). Similar results were reported by Indi et al (2014), Murumkar et al (2017) and Vajantha et al (2019).…”

Section: Seed Cane Yieldsupporting

confidence: 91%

Impact of Microbial Inoculants and Fertilizers on Nutrient Uptake and Yield of Sugarcane Short Crop

Raviteja¹,

Vajantha²,

Prasanthi³

et al. 2023

EEC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Surendran and Vani, 2013) [15] . Similar results were reported by Indi et al (2014) [8] , Murumkar et al (2017) [11] and Vajantha et al (2014) [20] .…”

Section: Treatmentssupporting

confidence: 89%

Soil enzymatic activity and yield of sugarcane short crop as influenced by fertilizers and microbial inoculants

Raviteja,

Vajantha,

Krishnaveni

et al. 2024

Int. J. Adv. Biochem. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

to study the effect of fertilizers and microbial inoculants on soil enzymatic activity and yield of sugarcane short crop. The experiment was laid out in randomized block design with ten treatments and replicated thrice. The treatments consist of 75%, 100% and 125% RDF in combination of solid and liquid microbial inoculants (Gluconacetobacter, PSB and KSB). Data on soil urease, dehydrogenase, acid and alkaline phosphatase enzyme activity and yield were recorded. Among the ten treatments 100% RDF along with soil application of liquid Gluconacetobacter @ 10 kg ha -1 ,

show abstract

“…Also, the positive results obtained by the inoculation on graminaceous plants (Kumarasamy & Santhaguru, 2011;Indi et al, 2014;Patil et al, 2011, Hernández-Escareño et al, 2015 and tropical foods (Dibut et al, 2011) were interesting in this way.…”

Section: Gluconacetobactermentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Tiene grandes atractivos para la elaboración de biofertilizantes por su capacidad de fijar nitrógeno atmosférico, producir ácido indolacético (IAA), solubilizar nutrientes minerales y presentar actividad antagonista frente a organismos fitopatógenos (Reis et al, 2015). A ello se le une los resultados positivos obtenidos por su inoculación sobre gramíneas (Kumarasamy & Santhaguru, 2011;Indi et al, 2014;Patil et al, 2011;Hernández-Escareño et al, 2015) y viandas tropicales (Dibut et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Untitled

2019

rbio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Para el crecimiento de Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus se han utilizado diferentes medios de cultivos, aunque existen pocos trabajos que ilustran cómo estos afectan las características del microorganismo y su efecto en la planta. El objetivo de esta investigación fue evaluar en condiciones in vitro e in vivo el efecto de cinco medios de cultivos sobre el potencial como promotor del crecimiento vegetal de esta especie bacteriana en zanahoria y remolacha. La concentración del microorganismo después de 48 horas de fermentación en zaranda rotatoria se mantuvo en el orden de 10 12 CFU. mL-1 para todos los medios de cultivo evaluados. Al finalizar el proceso fermentativo la bacteria presentó un crecimiento estable en un medio carente de nitrógeno combinado; sin embargo, las diferencias en los halos de solubilización en el medio NBRIP indican una afectación en la capacidad de solubilización de fósforo. El efecto de la aplicación de los productos finales de la fermentación sobre zanahoria y remolacha depende del medio utilizado para el crecimiento del microorganismo. Variantes como el SG y SYP producen una mayor influencia sobre el follaje, mientras que el medio MA (elaborado a base de arroz) sobresale por su efecto Article Info/Información del artículo

show abstract

Response of Sugarcane Varieties to Nitrogen and Phosphorus as Inoculated by Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus and PSB

Cited by 5 publications

References 7 publications

Impact of Microbial Inoculants and Fertilizers on Nutrient Uptake and Yield of Sugarcane Short Crop

Impact of Microbial Inoculants and Fertilizers on Nutrient Uptake and Yield of Sugarcane Short Crop

Soil enzymatic activity and yield of sugarcane short crop as influenced by fertilizers and microbial inoculants

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About