E-ISSN:2583-553X
P-ISSN:2394-6962

Research Article

Plant Growth

Applied Science and Biotechnology Journal for Advanced Research

2025 Volume 4 Number 1 January
Publisherwww.vandanapublications.com

Ameliorative Effect of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria Enhancing micronutrient uptake of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea. L).

Mathivanan S1*, Rabert G A2, Muthuraman B3, Rajakugan K4, ALA C5
DOI:10.5281/zenodo.14915606

1* S Mathivanan, PG and Research Department of Botany, A.V.C. College (Autonomous), Mannampandal, Mayiladuthurai, India.

2 Amalan Rabert G, PG and Research Department of Botany, A.V.C College (Autonomous), Mannampandal, Mayiladuthurai, India.

3 B Muthuraman, PG and Research Department of Botany, A.V.C College (Autonomous), Mannampandal, Mayiladuthurai, India.

4 K Rajakugan, PG and Research Department of Botany, A.V.C College (Autonomous), Mannampandal, Mayiladuthurai, India.

5 Chidambaram ALA, Department of Botany, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram, India.

Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is a premier oil seed crop in India occupying 45 per cent of total oil seed production. Though India leads both in area and production of groundnut, the country ranks eight in productivity due to fertilizer management and erratic response of the crop in terms of yield. Innovative agriculture is an immediate need of today’s world that has increased tremendously in its population. Hence, we need to increase the agricultural produce substantially with the help of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. A pot experiment was undertaken under botanical garden in Annamalai university, with three bacterial strains (Rhizobium sp.), (Pseudomonas sp.) and (Bacillus sp.), applied in our experiment. The treatment involving consortium inoculation with Rhizobium + Pseudomonas + Bacillus recorded highest values of Mg, Zn and Cu can improve nutrient uptake with a shoot portion of groundnut when compared to the root portion.

Keywords: biofertilizer, micronutrients, zinc, copper, iron, pgpr, groundnut

Corresponding Author How to Cite this Article To Browse
S Mathivanan, PG and Research Department of Botany, A.V.C. College (Autonomous), Mannampandal, Mayiladuthurai, India.
Email: 		Mathivanan S, Rabert G A, Muthuraman B, Rajakugan K, ALA C, Ameliorative Effect of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria Enhancing micronutrient uptake of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea. L).. Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. J. Adv. Res.. 2025;4(1):59-66.
Available From
https://abjar.vandanapublications.com/index.php/ojs/article/view/88

Manuscript Received Review Round 1 Review Round 2 Review Round 3 Accepted
2024-12-12 2025-01-04 2025-01-21
Conflict of Interest Funding Ethical Approval Plagiarism X-checker Note
None Nil Yes 4.6

© 2025 by Mathivanan S, Rabert G A, Muthuraman B, Rajakugan K, ALA C and Published by Vandana Publications. This is an Open Access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ unported [CC BY 4.0].

Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. J. Adv. Res. 2025;4(1)59
Download PDFBack To Article1. Introduction2. Materials
and Methods3. Results
and Discussion4. ConclusionReferences
Mathivanan S, et al. Ameliorative Effect of Plant Growth

1. Introduction

Agricultural crop productivity and food security are currently the challenges in the center of global attention for resilience and sustainable food system towards eradication of all versions of malnutrition and world hunger. It was predicted that in 2020 between 720 and 811 million people in the world faced hunger. Furthermore, food insecurity and malnutrition have been now exacerbated beneath the shadow of the covid-19 pandemic that downturns all the progress made in agriculture (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP AND WHO, 2021). To tackle this critical demand, FAO focuses on the implementation offour betters(better production, better nutrition, better environment, and better life) to ensure food security, persistent livelihoods and double the food production to attain the zero hunger target by 2030 (FAO, 2021).

Groundnut or peanut (Arachis hypogaeaL.) Is an important and fourth major economic oil yielding crop worldwide with the production of 42.4 million tons. It is an invaluable source of protein, essential fatty acids and other biologically active compounds (Deshmukh et al., 2020). The concerted efforts must be undertaken to face the ever increasing demand for high groundnut production due to its incredible therapeutic values to treat malnutrition (Sayyed et al., 2019). Conventional approaches such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides have been adopted to ensure maximum food production. However, the indispensable input of these chemical products creates a global concern due to their harmful impacts on environments (Rachidi et al., 2021). Thus, the incorporation of plant bio stimulant as a novel and environment-friendly strategy in agriculture hold a promise to secure crop performance, yield stability and soil quality (Rouphael et al., 2020;Basu et al., 2021;Hamid et al., 2021).

The modern system of farming, it is progressively more felt, is becoming indefensible as evidenced by moribund crop productivities, damage to environment, chemical contaminations, etc. The essential of having an alternative agriculture method which can function in a friendly eco-system while sustaining and increasing the crop productivity is realized now. Organic farming and biofertilizers is recognized as the best-known alternative to the conventional agriculture (Yadav et al., 2013).

Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) belongs to family Leguminosae is the “King of oilseed” in our country is an important crop both for oil and food. About 2/3 of the crop produce in the world is crushed to extract oil and 1/3 is used to make other edible products. Groundnut naturally enriches the soil through symbiosis. Organic sources which are good for improvement of soil properties, besides supplying nutrients for longer period of time without leaving ill effects on soil has been realized. Biofertilizers are the most useful technology necessary to support developing organic, sustainable, green and non-polluted agriculture. Although plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) have been reported to influence plant growth, yield and nutrient uptake by an array of mechanisms, the specific traits by which PGPR promote plant nutrient uptake were limited to the expression of one or more of the traits expressed at a given environment of plant–microbe interaction. Mineral elements are classified into two groups (macro elements and micro elements) depending on their importance in the plant. Macro elements (nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and Sulphur (S)) are those which are required by plants in large amount while microelements (iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), chlorine (Cl), boron (B), nickel (Ni) and molybdenum (Mo)) are those which are required by plants in small amount (White et al 2012). Shortage in any one of these elements restricts plant growth and reduces crop yields (Arunachalam et al., 2013). Bioavailability of mineral elements such as zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), copper (Cu) and manganese (Mn) and their uptake by plants is essential for crop production (Makoi et al., 2013). The aim of current experiment was conducted to investigate the response of groundnut to PGPR on enhancing micronutrients uptakes such as (Mg, Cu and Zn).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Seed Materials

The groundnut seed (Arachis hypogaea L.) var. VRI 2 was obtained from Regional Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu, India.


Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. J. Adv. Res. 2025;4(1)60
Mathivanan S, et al. Ameliorative Effect of Plant Growth

2.2 Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR)

Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (Rhizobium, Pseudomonas, and Bacillus) were obtained from the Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Agriculture, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu.

2.3 Seed Treatment

The seeds of groundnut were surface sterilized with 80 per cent ethanol and 0.1 per cent mercuric chloride and washed with distilled water for 3 to 4 times. The seeds were mixed with carrier-based plant growth promoting rhizobacteria either as individual organisms or consortium of organisms and shade dried for 30 min. After shade drying, the seeds were sown.

TreatmentsPlant growth promoting rhizobacteria
T0Seed without PGPR
T1Rhizobium
T2Pseudomonas
T3Bacillus
T4Rhizobium + Pseudomonas
T5Rhizobium + Bacillus
T6Pseudomonas + Bacillus
T7Rhizobium + Pseudomonas + Bacillus

2.4 Pot Culture Experiment

Pot experiments were conducted in Botanical Garden, Department of Botany, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu, India.

2.5 Sowing Method

Ten seeds of groundnut were sown in cement pots filled with soil, with treatments of various plant growth promoting rhizobacteria.

2.6 Irrigation Schedule

Pre-sowing irrigation was given to ensure uniform germination. Irrigation was given at 3 DAS with due care to avoid excess flooding of water. Uniform irrigation was done for two times per week.

2.7 Pot Culture Experiment Details

Crop : Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

Variety : VRI 2

Design : Complete Randomized Block Design

Sampling Days : 25, 50, 75 and 100 DAS

Parameters Studied : Micronutrient content plant sample.

Plant materials were estimated by the following methods.

2.8 Magnesium (Yoshida et al., 1972)

2 mL of the filtrate was mixed with 2 mL of 5 per cent lanthanum chloride solution and diluted with 10 mL of 1N hydrochloric acid. The solution was fed into an atomic absorption spectrophotometer at 211.9 nm for calcium and 285.4 nm for magnesium. Standard curve was prepared by using calcium chloride/magnesium chloride.

2.9 Zinc, Copper (De Vries and Tiller, 1980)

1 mL of sulphuric acid and 15 mL of double distilled water were added to a kjeldahl flask containing 0.5 g of dried powdered material and incubated at 80°C for overnight. After that, 5 mL of acid mixture (nitric acid and perchloric acid in the ratio of 3:1) was added and then digested. The digested material was cooled, made up to 50 mL and filtered through Whatmann No. 42 filter paper. The sample was aspired into an atomic absorption spectrophotometer with air acetylene flame for the estimation of zinc (214 nm), copper (324.6 nm), iron (568 nm) and manganese (530 nm). The readings were taken and recorded.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical significance was assessed at the P<0.05 level using one way ANOVA and means were separated by Duncan’s multiple range test (P<0.05) with the help of SPSS 16 software. Means and ± standard deviations were calculated from three replicates.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Magnesium

The results on the effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on magnesium content in root and leaf portion of groundnut at various stage of its growth. The highest magnesium content (63.92, 71.76, 84.59 and 97.89 ppm) of dry weight at 25, 50, 75 and 100 DAS were recorded in leaf portion of groundnut grown in consortium treatment (Rhizobium + Pseudomonas + Bacillus) of PGPR. The lowest magnesium content (30.53, 36.42, 48.93 and 63.42 ppm) of dry weight at 25, 50, 75 and 100 DAS were recorded in root portion of groundnut crop grown without PGPR treatment.


Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. J. Adv. Res. 2025;4(1)61
Mathivanan S, et al. Ameliorative Effect of Plant Growth

Magnesium is a part of the chlorophyll in all green plants with a chief role in essential photosynthesis. It is also helps to activate many plant enzymes needed for growth. The magnesium content of the crop is higher in leaf portion in 75day crop grown in the combined treatment of PGPR. The lowest magnesium content was recorded in root portion of the crop in control treatment. The maximum level of Magnesium content was obtained in Pseudomonas + Azotobacter and Pseudomonas + Azospirillum treatments, (Sharaf Zadeh, 2012). Erturk et al. (2011) reported that, the concentration of macro and micronutrient such as magnesium content of plant tissue increased by bacterial treatment in hazelnut plant. Bacterial applications significantly affected concentrations of magnesium, when compared to the control in apple (Karakurt and Aslantas, 2010). Plant growth benefits due to the addition of PGPR include the increase in magnesium content in faba bean (Abd El-Azeem et al., 2007). This observed enhancement in biomass might be due to increased macro- and micro-nutrient (e.g. N, P, K, S, Mg, and Fe) uptake by chickpea seedlings in those treatments as reported by Hartz et al. (1996).

3.2 Zinc

The results on the effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on zinc content in root and leaf portion of groundnut at various stage of its growth. The highest zinc content (52.28, 56.58, 62.99 and 69.70 ppm) of dry weight at 25, 50, 75 and 100 DAS were recorded in leaf portion of groundnut grown in consortium treatment (Rhizobium + Pseudomonas + Bacillus) of PGPR. The lowest zinc content (20.87, 25.42, 29.83 and 36.42 ppm) of dry weight at 25, 50, 75 and 100 DAS were recorded in root portion of groundnut crop grown without PGPR treatment.

Zinc is directly or indirectly involved in several enzyme system, auxin production, RNA synthesis, protein synthesis, seed production and rate of maturity. The zinc content of the crop is higher in leaf portion in 75-day crop grown in the combined treatment of PGPR. The lowest zinc content was recorded in root portion of the crop in control treatment.

Both direct and indirect PGPR pathways may have an impact on plant performance. Producing substances that stimulate plant growth (phytohormones), increasing the availability and uptake of nutrients in the soil through biological nitrogen fixation,

releasing fixed forms of nutrients into plant-useful systems (P, K, and Zn), chelating nutrients (Fe) through the production of siderophores, and other similar processes are examples of direct mechanisms (Kouretal., 2023;Upadhyayetal., 2022). Zinc is an indispensable micronutrient, required in a small amount for crops to play numerous important functions in their life cycle. It is involved in various physiological and biochemical functions of plants (Kumar et al., 2019). Plant growth promoting and nitrogen fixing microorganisms improved the plant dry biomass, N, P, K, Zn, and Fe contents when compared to the uninoculated control of Phaseolus vulgaris L. (Mishra et al., 2014). PGPR can increase Zn-availability to plants by solubilizing complex Zn compounds and thus alleviate Zn deficiency in plants (Saravanan et al., 2011). Elkoca et al. (2008) found significant increases of zinc concentration in the common bean with PGPR treatments. Shirmardi et al. (2010) reported that rhizobacteria inoculants produce higher copper, Fe and Mn concentration than that of the control. Bacterial inoculations especially mixed inoculation, significantly helps in increased uptake of micronutrients (Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu) of leaf, and straw part of the plant (Turan et al., 2010). Esitken et al. (2006) observed in co-inoculation of Pseudomonas + Bacillus increase of zinc contents in leaves. The bacterial applications affected the zinc contents in rabbit eye blueberry (De Silva et al., 2000).

3.3 Copper

The results on the effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on copper content in root and leaf portion of groundnut at various stage of its growth. The highest copper content (24.10, 26.58, 29.39 and 31.88 ppm) of dry weight at 25, 50, 75 and 100 DAS were recorded in leaf portion of groundnut grown in consortium treatment (Rhizobium + Pseudomonas + Bacillus) of PGPR. The lowest copper content (8.10, 10.36, 13.27 and 15.42 ppm) of dry weight at 25, 50, 75 and 100 DAS was recorded in root portion of groundnut crop grown without PGPR treatment.

Copper plays an important role in reproductive growth.The copper content of the crop is higher in leaf portion in 75-day crop grown in the combined treatment of PGPR. The lowest copper content was recorded in root portion of the crop in control treatment.


Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. J. Adv. Res. 2025;4(1)62
Mathivanan S, et al. Ameliorative Effect of Plant Growth

PGPR inoculations (Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus atrophaeus, Bacillus spharicus, sub group Staphylococcus kloosii, and Kocuria erythromyxa) significantly increased the nutrient uptake of copper in strawberry plants when compared to control (Karlidag et al., 2013). Yolcu et al. (2011) reported that PGPR treatments increased the concentrations of copper than that of the control in Italian ryegrass.

Canbolat et al. (2006) reported that phosphate solubilizing and N2-fixing PGPR increased the uptake of copper content in barley, spinach and wheat.

Table 1: Effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on magnesium content (ppm/dr. wt.) in leaf of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

TreatmentsAge of the plant in days
255075100

Control (T0)

38.16 ± 1.14g46.00 ± 1.38g58.83 ± 1.76g72.13 ± 2.16h
Rhizobium (T1)41.84 ± 1.25fg49.68 ± 1.49fg62.51 ± 1.87fg75.81 ± 2.27g
Pseudomonas (T2)45.52 ± 1.37ef53.36 ± 1.60ef66.19 ± 1.99ef79.49 ± 2.38f
Bacillus (T3)49.20 ± 1.48de57.06 ± 1.71de69.89 ± 2.10de83.19 ± 2.50e
Rhizobium + Pseudomonas (T4­)52.88 ± 1.59cd60.72 ± 1.82cd73.55 ± 2.21cd86.85 ± 2.61d
Rhizobium + Bacillus (T5)56.56 ± 1.70bc64.40 ± 1.93bc77.23 ± 2.32bc90.53 ± 2.72c
Pseudomonas + Bacillus (T6)60.24 ± 1.81ab68.08 ± 2.04ab80.91 ± 2.42ab94.21 ± 2.83b
Rhizobium + Pseudomonas + Bacillus (T7)63.92 ± 1.92a71.76 ± 2.15a84.59 ± 2.54a97.89 ± 2.94a
S.Ed.2.201.852.001.69
CD (P = 0.05)4.663.914.243.59

Data are average values of three replicates ± SD. Mean with different letters in the same column differ significant P £ 0.05 (L.S.D.)

Table 2: Effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on magnesium content (ppm/dr. wt.) in root of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

TreatmentsAge of the plant in days
255075100
Control (T0)30.53 ± 0.92h36.42 ± 1.09g48.93 ± 1.48f63.42 ± 1.90g
Rhizobium (T1)34.28 ± 1.03g40.17 ± 1.20fg52.68 ± 1.58ef67.17 ± 2.01fg
Pseudomonas (T2)38.03 ± 1.14f43.92 ± 1.32ef55.43 ± 1.66e69.92 ± 2.10ef
Bacillus (T3)41.78 ± 1.25e47.67 ± 1.43de60.18 ± 1.80d74.67 ± 2.24de
Rhizobium + Pseudomonas (T4­)45.53 ± 1.37d51.42 ± 1.54cd63.93 ± 1.92cd78.42 ± 2.35cd
Rhizobium + Bacillus (T5)49.28 ± 1.48c55.17 ± 1.65bc67.68 ± 2.03bc82.17 ± 2.46bc
Pseudomonas + Bacillus (T6)53.03 ± 1.59b58.92 ± 1.77ab71.43 ± 2.14ab85.92 ± 2.58ab
Rhizobium + Pseudomonas + Bacillus (T7)56.78 ± 1.70a62.67 ± 1.88a75.18 ± 2.25a89.67 ± 2.69a
S.Ed.1.732.022.142.30
CD (P = 0.05)3.674.284.534.89

Data are average values of three replicates ± SD. Mean with different letters in the same column differ significant P £ 0.05 (L.S.D.)

Table 3: Effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on zinc content (ppm/dr. wt.) in leaf of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

TreatmentsAge of the plant in days
255075100
Control (T0)25.12 ± 0.75g29.42 ± 0.88h35.83 ± 1.07g42.54 ± 1.28h
Rhizobium (T1)29.00 ± 0.87fg33.30 ± 1.00g39.71 ± 1.19fg46.42 ± 1.39g
Pseudomonas (T2)32.88 ± 0.99ef37.18 ± 1.11f43.59 ± 1.31ef50.30 ± 1.51f
Bacillus (T3)36.76 ± 1.10de41.06 ± 1.23e47.47 ± 1.42de54.18 ± 1.62e
Rhizobium + Pseudomonas (T4­)40.64 ± 1.22cd44.94 ± 1.35d51.35 ± 1.54cd58.06 ± 1.74d
Rhizobium + Bacillus (T5)44.52 ± 1.34bc48.82 ± 1.46c55.23 ± 1.66bc61.94 ± 1.86c
Pseudomonas + Bacillus (T6)48.40 ± 1.45ab52.70 ± 1.58b59.11 ± 1.77ab65.82 ± 1.97b
Rhizobium + Pseudomonas + Bacillus (T7)52.28 ± 1.57a56.58 ± 1.70a62.99 ± 1.89a69.70 ± 2.09a
S.Ed.1.861.701.881.55
CD (P = 0.05)3.953.613.983.29

Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. J. Adv. Res. 2025;4(1)63
Mathivanan S, et al. Ameliorative Effect of Plant Growth

Data are average values of three replicates ± SD. Mean with different letters in the same column differ significant P £ 0.05 (L.S.D.)

Table 4: Effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on zinc content (ppm/dr. wt.) in root of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

TreatmentsAge of the plant in days
255075100
Control (T0)20.87 ± 0.62g25.42 ± 0.76g29.83 ± 0.89g36.42 ± 1.09g
Rhizobium (T1)24.08 ± 0.72fg28.63 ± 0.86fg33.04 ± 0.99fg39.63 ± 1.19fg
Pseudomonas (T2)27.29 ± 0.82ef31.84 ± 0.95ef36.25 ± 1.09ef42.84 ± 1.28ef
Bacillus (T3)30.50 ± 0.91de35.05 ± 1.05de39.46 ± 1.18de46.05 ± 1.38de
Rhizobium + Pseudomonas (T4­)33.71 ± 1.01cd38.26 ± 1.15cd42.67 ± 1.28cd49.26 ± 1.48cd
Rhizobium + Bacillus (T5)36.92 ± 1.11bc41.47 ± 1.24bc45.88 ± 1.38bc52.47 ± 1.57bc
Pseudomonas + Bacillus (T6)40.13 ± 1.20ab44.68 ± 1.34ab49.09 ± 1.47ab55.68 ± 1.67ab
Rhizobium + Pseudomonas + Bacillus (T7)43.34 ± 1.30a47.89 ± 1.44a52.30 ± 1.57a58.89 ± 1.77a
S.Ed.1.691.641.881.92
CD (P = 0.05)3.593.483.994.06

Data are average values of three replicates ± SD. Mean with different letters in the same column differ significant P £ 0.05 (L.S.D.)

Table 5: Effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on copper content (ppm/dr. wt.) in leaf of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

TreatmentsAge of the plant in days
255075100

Control (T0)

11.64 ± 0.35g14.12 ± 0.42g16.93 ± 0.51f19.42 ± 0.58g
Rhizobium (T1)13.42 ± 0.40fg15.90 ± 0.48fg18.71 ± 0.56ef21.20 ± 0.64fg
Pseudomonas (T2)15.20 ± 0.46ef17.68 ± 0.53ef20.49 ± 0.61def22.98 ± 0.69ef
Bacillus (T3)16.98 ± 0.51de19.46 ± 0.58de22.27 ± 0.67cde24.76 ± 0.74de
Rhizobium + Pseudomonas (T4­)18.76 ± 0.56cd21.24 ± 0.64cd24.05 ± 0.72bcd26.54 ± 0.80cd
Rhizobium + Bacillus (T5)20.54 ± 0.62bc23.02 ± 0.69bc25.83 ± 0.77abc28.32 ± 0.85bc
Pseudomonas + Bacillus (T6)22.32 ± 0.67ab24.80 ± 0.74ab27.61 ± 0.83ab30.10 ± 0.90ab
Rhizobium + Pseudomonas + Bacillus (T7)24.10 ± 0.72a26.58 ± 0.80a29.39 ± 0.88a31.88 ± 0.96a
S.Ed.1.631.561.791.56
CD (P = 0.05)3.453.303.803.31

Data are average values of three replicates ± SD. Mean with different letters in the same column differ significant P £ 0.05 (L.S.D.)

Table 6: Effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on copper content (ppm/dr. wt.) in root of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

TreatmentsAge of the plant in days
255075100

Control (T0)

8.10 ± 0.24f10.36 ± 0.31f13.27 ± 0.40e15.42 ± 0.46e
Rhizobium (T1)9.46 ± 0.28ef11.72 ± 0.35ef14.63 ± 0.44de16.78 ± 0.50de
Pseudomonas (T2)10.82 ± 0.32def13.08 ± 0.39def15.99 ± 0.48cde18.14 ± 0.54cde
Bacillus (T3)12.18 ± 0.36cde14.44 ± 0.43cde17.35 ± 0.52bcde19.50 ± 0.58bcde
Rhizobium + Pseudomonas (T4­)13.54 ± 0.41bcd15.80 ± 0.47bcd18.71 ± 0.56abcd20.86 ± 0.63abcd
Rhizobium + Bacillus (T5)14.90 ± 0.45abc17.16 ± 0.51abc20.07 ± 0.60abc22.22 ± 0.66abc
Pseudomonas + Bacillus (T6)16.26 ± 0.49ab18.52 ± 0.56ab21.43 ± 0.64ab23.58 ± 0.71ab
Rhizobium + Pseudomonas + Bacillus (T7)17.62 ± 0.53a19.88 ± 0.60a22.79 ± 0.68a24.94 ± 0.75a
S.Ed.1.541.552.012.04
CD (P = 0.05)3.273.294.274.32

Data are average values of three replicates ± SD. Mean with different letters in the same column differ significant P £ 0.05 (L.S.D.)

4. Conclusion

The micronutrients were analyzed in dried plant material of leaf and root portion. The high amounts of minerals were recorded in leaf portion when compared to root. The highest minerals were recorded in consortium treatment of PGPR (Rhizobium + Pseudomonas + Bacillus). Efficient plant nutrition management should ensure both enhanced and sustainable agricultural production and safeguard the environment. Hence, there is an urgent need for integrated nutrient management that targets agricultural inputs and lowers the adverse environmental impacts of agricultural fertilizers and practices.


Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. J. Adv. Res. 2025;4(1)64
Mathivanan S, et al. Ameliorative Effect of Plant Growth

References

1. Abd El-Azeem, S.A., T.A. Mehana, & A.A. Shabayek. (2007). Response of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) to inoculation with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Catrina, 2, 67-75.

2. Arunachalam, P., P. Kannan, J. Prabhaharan, G. Prabukumar, & Z. Kavitha. (2013). Response of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) genotypes to soil fertilization of micronutrients in alfisol conditions. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding, 4(1), 1043-1049.

3. Basu, A., Prasad, P., Das, S. N., Sadaf Kalam, R. Z., Sayyed, & M. S., Reddy, et al. (2021). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) as green bioinoculants: recent developments, constraints, and prospects. Sustainability, 13, 11-40.

4. Canbolat, M.Y., K. Barik, R. Çakmakçi, & F. Şahin. (2006). Effects of mineral and biofertilizers on barley growth on compacted soil. Acta Agric. Scan. (B Plant Soil Sci.), 56, 324-332.

5. De Silva, A., K. Petterson, C. Rothrock, & J. Moore. (2000). Growth promotion of high bush blueberry by fungal and bacterial inoculants. Hort. Sci., 35, 1228–1230.

6. De Vries, M.P.C., & K.G. Tiller. (1980). Routine procedures for determining Cu, Zn, Mn and Fe in plant materials. Common Health Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Australia, pp. 12.

7. Deshmukh, D. B., Marathi, B., Sudini, H. K., Variath, M. T., Chaudhari, S., & Manohar, S. (2020). Combining high oleic acid trait and resistance to late leaf spot and rust diseases in groundnut (Arachis hypogaeaL.). Front. Genet.,11, 5-14.

8. Elkoca, E., F. Kantar, & F. Sahin. (2008). Influence of nitrogen fixing and phosphorus solubilizing bacteria on the nodulation, plant growth and yield of chickpea. J. Plant Nutr., 31, 157-171.

9. Erturk, Y., R. Cakmakci, O. Duyar, & M. Turan. (2011). The effects of plant growth promotion rhizobacteria on vegetative growth and leaf nutrient contents of hazelnut seedlings (Turkish hazelnut cv, Tombul and Sivri). Inter. J. Soil Sci., 6, 188-198.

10. Esitken, A., L. Pirlak, M. Turan, & F. Sahin. (2006). Effects of floral and foliar application of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on yield, growth and nutrition of sweet cherry. Scientia Horti., 110, 324–327.

11. FAO. (2021). FAO’s strategic framework 2022–31. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

12. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2021). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021. Transforming Food Systems for Food Security, Improved Nutrition and Affordable Healthy Diets for All, Rome.

13. Hamid, B., Zaman, M., Farooq, S., Fatima, S., Sayyed, R. Z., & Baba, Z. A. (2021). Bacterial plant biostimulants: A sustainable way towards improving growth, productivity, and health of crops. Sustainability, 21, 28 -56.

14. Hartz, T.K., Costa, F.J., & Schrader, W.L. (1996). Suitability of composted green waste for horticultural uses. Hortscience, 31, 961–964.

15. Karakurt, H., & R. Aslantas. (2010). Effects of some plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) strains on plant growth and leaf nutrient content of apple. J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res., 18, 101-110.

16. Karlidag, H., E. Yildirim, M. Turan, M. Pehluvan, & F. Donmez. (2013). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria mitigate deleterious effects of salt stress on strawberry plants (Fragaria xananassa). Hortsci., 48, 563–567.

17. Kour D.,T.Kaur,R.Devi,K.K.Chaubey,& A.N.Yadav. (2023). Co-inoculation of nitrogen fixing and potassium solubilizing Acinetobacter sp. for growth promotion of onion (Allium cepa). Biologia, 1-7.

18. Kumar A., S.Dewangan,P.Lawate,I.Bahadur,& S.Prajapati. (2019). Zinc-solubilizing bacteria: A boon for sustainable agriculture plant growth promoting rhizobacteria for sustainable stress management. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, pp.139-155

19. Makoi, J.H., S. Bambara, & P. A. Ndakidemi. (2013). Rhizobium inoculation and the supply of molybdenum and lime affect the uptake of macroelements in common bean (P. vulgaris L.) plants. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 7(6), 784-793.

20. Mishra, P.K., S.C. Bisht, K. Jeevanandan, S. Kumar, J.K. Bisht, & J.C. Bhatt. (2014). Synergistic effect of inoculating plant growth-promoting Pseudomonas sp. and Rhizobium leguminosarum-FB1 on growth and nutrient uptake of rajmash (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Arch. Agro. Soil Sci., 60, 799-815.


Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. J. Adv. Res. 2025;4(1)65
Mathivanan S, et al. Ameliorative Effect of Plant Growth

21. Rachidi, F., Benhima, R., Kasmi, Y., Sbabou, L., & Arroussi, H. E. (2021). Evaluation of microalgae polysaccharides as biostimulants of tomato plant defence using metabolomics and biochemical approaches. Sci. Rep., 11, 1-16.

22. Rouphael, Y., Lucini, L., Miras-Moreno, B., Colla, G., Bonini, P., & Cardarelli, M. (2020). Metabolomic responses of maize shoots and roots elicited by combinatorial seed treatments with microbial and non-microbial biostimulants. Front. Microbiol., 11, 6-64.

23. Saravanan, V., Kumar, M. R., & Sa, T. (2011). Microbial zinc solubilization and their role on plants. in Bacteria in Agrobiology: Plant Nutrient Management, ed. D. Maheshwari (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), pp. 47–63.

24. Sayyed, R. Z., Sonia Seifi, P. R., Patel, S. S. S., Jadhav, H. P., & El Enshasy, H. (2019). Siderophore production in groundnut rhizosphere isolate,Achromobactersp. RZS2 influenced by physicochemical factors and metal ions.Environ. Sustain., 2, 117–124.

25. Sharafzadeh, S. (2012). Effects of PGPR on growth and nutrients uptake of tomato. Inter. J. Adv. Eng. Technol., 2, 27-3.

26. Shirmardi, M., G.R. Savaghebi, K. Khavazi, A. Akbarzadeh, M. Farahbakhsh, F. Rejali, & A. Sadat. (2010). Effect of microbial inoculants on uptake of nutrient elements in two cultivars of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) in saline soils. Notulae Scientia Biologicae, 2, 57-66.

27. Turan, M., M. Gulluce, R. Cakmakci, T. Oztas, & F. Sahin. (2010). The effect of PGPR strain on wheat yield and quality parameters. 19th world congress of soil science. Soil Solutions for a Changing World, pp. 1-6.

28. Upadhyay S.K., V.D. Rajput, A.Kumari, D.Espinosa Saiz, E.Menendez, T.Minkina, P.Dwivedi, & S.Mandzhieva. (2022). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: a potential bio-asset for restoration of degraded soil and crop productivity with sustainable emerging techniques. Environ. Geochem. Health, 1-24.

29. White, P. J., M. R. Broadley, & P. J. Gregory. (2012). Managing the nutrition of plants and people. Applied and Environmental Soil Science, 1-14.

30. Yadav, S. K., Subhash Babu, Yadav, M. K., Kalyan Singh, Yadav, G. S., & Suresh, P. (2013). A review of organic farming for sustainable agriculture in Northern India. International J. Agronomy, 1-8.

31. Yolcu, H., M. Turan, A. Lithourgidis, R. Cakmakci, & A. Koc. (2011). Effects of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and manure on yield and quality characteristics of Italian ryegrass under semi-arid conditions. Aus. J. Curr. Sci., 5, 1730-1736.

32. Yoshida, S., D.A. Forno, J. Cock, & K. Gomez. (1972). Laboratory manual for physiological studies of rice. (3rd ed). Philippines: IRRI.

Disclaimer / Publisher's Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of Journals and/or the editor(s). Journals and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. J. Adv. Res. 2025;4(1)66