STUDIES ON PHOSPHATASE ACTIVITY AND CLUSTERBEAN PRODUCTION AS INFLUENCED BY THE P MOBILIZING ORGANISM EMERICELLA RUGULOSA

Article Id: ARCC1290 | Page : 114 - 118
Citation :- STUDIES ON PHOSPHATASE ACTIVITY AND CLUSTERBEAN PRODUCTION AS INFLUENCED BY THE P MOBILIZING ORGANISM EMERICELLA RUGULOSA.Legume Research-An International Journal.2010.(33):114 - 118
B.K. Yadav* and J.C. Tarafdar bkyadav74@yahoo.co.in
Address : Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur- 342003, India

Abstract

Phosphorus is one of the major plant growth limiting nutrients although it is abundant in soils
in both inorganic and organic forms. In soils the hydrolysis of organic P is predominantly mediated
by the activity of phosphatases, such as acid and alkaline phosphatases and phytase released by
plant roots and microorganisms. In order to evaluate the effect of Emericella rugulosa on soil
enzyme activities and crop yield, an experiment was conducted under green house conditions
and field (clusterbean as a test crop). A significantly higher enzyme activities and improvement
in plant biomass, root length and P content was observed in sterilized soil mainly due to increased
population of Emericella rugulosa. The test plants influenced acid phosphatase and phytase
activity but resulted in no significant increase in alkaline phosphatase activity in the inoculated
soil. The depletion of organic P was much higher than mineral and phytin P. The microbial
contribution was significantly (p=0.05) higher than the plant contribution to the hydrolysis of
the different P fractions. A significant (p=0.05) improvement in seed and straw yield and P
concentration of seed and straw resulted from inoculation. The results suggested that Emericella
rugulosa produces phosphatases and phytase, which mobilize P from native P sources and enhance
the production of clusterbean in an arid soil.

Keywords

Clusterbean Emericella rugulosa Phytase P-mobilization.

References

  1. Ames, B.N. (1966). Method Enzymol. 8,115-118.
  2. Jackson, M.L. (1967). Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice-Hall of India, Delhi.
  3. Jones, D.L (1998). Plant Soil 205, 25-44.
  4. Kiston, R.E. and Mellon, M.G. (1944). Ind. Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed. 2, 379-383.
  5. Kucey R.M.N. et al. (1989). Adv. Agron. 42,198-228.
  6. Li, M. et al. (1997). Soil. Sci. Plant Nutr. 43, 179-190.
  7. Mega, J.A. (1982). J. Agril. Food Chem. 30, 1-9.
  8. Neumann, G. and Römheld. V. (2000) In: The rhizosphere, biochemistry and organic substances at the soil-plant
  9. interface (Ed. Pintor, R. et al.) Marcel Dekker Inc, p 41-93.
  10. Panse, V.G. and Sukhatme, P.V. (2000). Statistical methods for agricultural workers. ICAR, New Delhi, 359p.
  11. 118 LEGUME RESEARCH
  12. Rao, A.V et al. (1990). J. Agric. Sci. 115, 221-225.
  13. Richardson, A.E. et al. (2001). Plant Soil 29, 47-56.
  14. Seeling, B. and Jungk, A. (1996). Plant Soil 178, 179-184.
  15. Tabatabai, M.A. and Bremner, J.M. (1969) Soil. Biol. Biochem. 1, 301-307.
  16. Tarafdar, J.C. and Gharu, A. (2005). Appl. Soil. Ecol. 32, 273-283.
  17. Tarafdar, J.C. (1989). J. Ind. Soc. Soil Sci. 37, 393-395.
  18. Tennant, D. (1975). J. Ecol. 63, 995-1001.
  19. Yadav, B.K. and Tarafdar, J.C. (2004). J. Arid Environ. 56, 285-293.
  20. Yadav, B.K. and Tarafdar, J.C. (2007). Indian J. Microbio. 41, 57-63.
  21. Yadav, R.S. and Tarafdar, J.C. (2001). Fertil. Soils 34, 140-143.
  22. Yadav, R.S. and Tarafdar, J.C. (2003) Soil Biol. Biochem. 35, 745-751

Global Footprints