IMPACT OF PGPR AND GA3 ON GROWTH, YIELD AND LEAF NUTRIENT STATUS OF STRAWBERRY

SEEMA KUMARI1*, KULDEEP MEHTA2
1Department of Agriculture, Baba Farid College, BFGI, Deon, Bathinda, Punjab, 151001, India
2Department of Fruit Science, Dr Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, 173230, India
* Corresponding Author : samilodott@gmail.com

Received : 02-12-2018     Accepted : 27-12-2018     Published : 30-12-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 24       Pages : 7667 - 7670
Int J Agr Sci 10.24 (2018):7667-7670

Keywords : Strawberry, Growth, Leaf Nutrient, Physiological characters
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Dr Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, 173230, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Cite - MLA : KUMARI, SEEMA and MEHTA, KULDEEP "IMPACT OF PGPR AND GA3 ON GROWTH, YIELD AND LEAF NUTRIENT STATUS OF STRAWBERRY." International Journal of Agriculture Sciences 10.24 (2018):7667-7670.

Cite - APA : KUMARI, SEEMA, MEHTA, KULDEEP (2018). IMPACT OF PGPR AND GA3 ON GROWTH, YIELD AND LEAF NUTRIENT STATUS OF STRAWBERRY. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 10 (24), 7667-7670.

Cite - Chicago : KUMARI, SEEMA and KULDEEP, MEHTA. "IMPACT OF PGPR AND GA3 ON GROWTH, YIELD AND LEAF NUTRIENT STATUS OF STRAWBERRY." International Journal of Agriculture Sciences 10, no. 24 (2018):7667-7670.

Copyright : © 2018, SEEMA KUMARI and KULDEEP MEHTA, Published by Bioinfo Publications. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract

A field trial was conducted to monitor the impact of five isolates of Bacillus sp. viz. Bacillus licheniformis CKA1, Bacillus subtilis CB 8 A, Bacillus sp. RG1, Bacillus sp. S1 and Bacillus sp. S2 @ 109 CFU in combination with GA3 (25, 50 and 75 ppm) on plant growth, physiological parameters, yield and leaf nutrient status of strawberry cv. Chandler during the years 2013-14. The study showed significant effects of the treatments where the maximum plant height, leaf area, number of crowns per plant were recorded from T15, while the maximum plant spread in T12 and the number of runners per plant in T18. The number of fruits and yield were highest in T12 and lowest in control (T19). The physiological parameters viz. chlorophyll content in T9, rate of photosynthesis in T15 while stomatal conductance and transpiration rate in T18 were recorded maximum. Treatments also had significant effects on leaf nutrient contents in which maximum leaf nitrogen and manganese were recorded in T9, whereas phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, zinc in T18.The potassium was highest in T6 and iron, copper in T12. Study revealed that the PGPR can be used for sustainable fruit production.

References

1. Sonam and Singh Shailesh Kumar (2018) International Journal of Chemical Studies, 6(3), 1382-87.
2. Anonymous (2017a) Horticulture at a glance, India.
3. Anonymous (2017b) Administrative report on Horticulture development in Himachal Pradesh at a glance, Himachal Pradesh, India.
4. Karlidag H., Yildirim E., Turan M. and Pehluvan M. (2013) Hort. Science, 48(5), 563–567.
5. Kurokura Takeshi, Hiraide S., Shimamura Y. and Yamane K. (2017) Environmental Control in Biology, 55(3):121-128.
6. Kumari Seema, Mehta Kuldeep and Singh Niranjan (2018) Journal of Pharmacgnosy and Phytochemistry, 7(2), 383-387.
7. Kumari Seema and Mehta Kuldeep (2018) Green Farming, 9(3), 481-485.
8. Hiscox J. D. and Israelstam G. F. (1979) Canadian Journal of Botany ,57, 1332-1334.
9. Kenworthy A. L. (1964) Fruit, nut and plantation crops, deciduous and evergreen; Guide for collecting foliar samples of nutrient element analysis, 1-39.
10. Jackson M. L. (1973) Soil Chemical Analysis, 498.
11. Piper C. S. (1966) Soil and plant analysis, 368.
12. Gomez K. A. and Gomez A. A. (1984) Statistical Procedure for Agricultural Research, 2nd edition, 680.
13. Pandit Bilal Ahmad, Hassan Aamir, Hassan Gousia and Hayat Shazia (2013) Progressive Horticulture, 45(1), 58-68.
14. Tripathi V. K., Mishra A. N., Kumar Sanjeev and Tiwari Bharat (2014) Progressive Horticulture,46(1), 48- 53.
15. R. Swamy Sekhar, Mehta Kuldeep, Kumari Seema and Kalsi Kapil (2016) Environment and Ecology, 34(4), 1247-1250.
16. Qureshi Khalid Mahmood, Chughtai Saman, Qureshi Usman Shoukat and Abbasi Nadeem Akhtar (2013) Pak. J. Bot., 45(4), 1179-1185.
17. Thakur Seema, Mehta Kuldeep and R. Swamy Sekhar (2017) Progressive Research, 12(1), 1392-1396.
18. Misratia Khadija M., Ismail MohdRazi, Hakim Md Abdul, Mohamed Hanafi Musa and PutehAdam (2013) Australian Journal of Crop Science, 7(11), 1682-1692.
19. Moneruzzaman K. M., Hossain A. B. M. S., Normaniza O. and Boyce A. N. (2011) African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(56), 11911-11918.
20. Monge E., Aguirre R. and Blanco E. E. A. (1994) Optimization of plant nutrition, 319-323.
21. Shahin M. F., Fawzi M. I. F. and Kandil E. A. (2010) Journal of American Science, 6(12), 202- 208.
22. Singh Akath and Singh J. N. (2009) Indian Journal of Horticulture, 66(2), 220-224.
23. Eid R. A. and Abou-Leila B. H. (2006) World J. Agric. Sci., 2, 174–179.
24. Garner Lauren, Klein Grant, Zheng Yusheng, Khuong Toan and Lovatt Carol J. (2009) J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci.,133, 3–10.