Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-gs9qr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T16:07:26.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in growth and yield components of Brassica napus in response to Azotobacter inoculation at different rates of nitrogen application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Prabhjeet Singh  and
S. C. Bhargava
Prabhjeet Singh
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Physiology, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi–110012, India
S. C. Bhargava
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Physiology, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi–110012, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Inoculation of Brassica napus cv. ISN–129 with Azotobacter chroococcum following the application of different amounts of nitrogen produced the greatest increase in seed yield and total dry matter when no external nitrogen had been applied. The yield increase in response to inoculation could be attributed to a greater number of primary branches and pods, associated with a higher leaf area index, particularly at the pod-filling stage, and a faster crop growth rate.

Information

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 122 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 241 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Agarwal, S. (1985). Interaction of strains of Azotobacter chroococcum with cultivars of mustard (Brassica juncea and Brassica napus). MSc thesis, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Allen, E. J. & Morgan, D. G. (1975). A quantitative comparison of growth, development and yield of different varieties of oilseed rape. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 85, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barten, L. L., Johnson, G. V. & Orbock Miller, S. (1986). The effect of Azospirillum brasilense on iron absorption and translocation by sorghum. Journal of Plant Nutrition 9, 557–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bashan, Y. & Levanony, H. (1990). Current status of Azospirillum inoculation technology; Azospirillum as a challenge for agriculture. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 36, 591–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, J. E. & Woolhouse, H. W. (1973). Increased cytokinin from root system of Perilla frutescens and flower and fruit development. Nature New Biology 246, 31–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhargava, S. C. & Tomar, D. P. S. (1982). Physiological basis of yield improvement in rapeseed mustard. In Proceedings of an Imlo-Swedish Joint Workshop on Rapeseed Mustard, pp. 33–41. Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Boddey, R. M., Baldani, V. L. D., Baldani, J. I. & Döbereiner, J. (1986). Effect of inoculation of Azospirilum spp. on nitrogen accumulation by field-grown wheat. Plant and Soil 95, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brar, G. & Thies, N. (1977). Contribution of leaves, stem, siliques and seeds to dry matter accumulation in ripening seeds of rape seed, Brassica napus L. Zeitschrift fiir Pjtanzenphysiologie 82, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Essawy, A. A., El-Sayed, M. A., Mohamed, Y. A. H. & Ei-Shanshoury, A. (1984). Effect of combined nitrogen on the production of plant growth regulators by Azotobacler chrooeoccuni. Zentralblatt fiir Mikrobiologie 139, 327–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapulnik, Y., Gafni, R. & Okon, Y. (1985). Effect of Azospirillwn spp. inoculation on root development and NO-3 uptake in wheat (Triticum aestivum cv. Miriam) in hydroponic systems. Canadian Journal of Botany 63, 627–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M., Breckenridge, C. & Knowles, R. (1970). Effect of some culture conditions on the production of indole-3- acetic acid and a gibberellin-like substance by Azotobacter vinelandii. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 16, 1325–1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, W., Okon, Y. & Hardy, R. W. F. (1983). Enhanced mineral uptake by Zea mays and Sorghum bicolor inoculated with Azospirillum brasilense. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 45, 1775–1779.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Major, D. L., Bole, J. B. & Charnetski, W. A. (1978). Distribution of photosynthates after 14CO2 assimilation by stems, leaves, and pods of rape plants. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 58, 783–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meshram, S. U. & Shende, S. T. (1982). Response of maize to Azotobacter chroococcum. Plant and Soil 69, 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rood, S. B., Major, D. J. & Charnetski, W. A. (1984). Seasonal changes in 14CO2 assimilation and HC translocation in oilseed rape. Field Crops Research 8, 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saha, K. C., Sannigrahi, S. & Mandal, L. N. (1985). Effect of inoculation of Azospirillum lipoferum on nitrogen fixation in rhizosphere soil, their association with root, yield and nitrogen uptake by mustard (Brassica juncea). Plant and Soil 87, 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarig, S., Blum, A. & Okon, Y. (1988). Improvement of the water status and yield of field-grown grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) by inoculation with Azospirillum brasilense. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 110, 271–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singal, H. R., Sheoran, I. S. & Singh, R. (1987). Photosynthetic carbon fixation characteristics of fruiting structures of Brassica campestris L. Plant Physiology 83, 1043–1047.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, N. & Bhargava, S. C. (1989). Podwall photosynthesis of Brassica species. In Proceedings of International Congress of Plant Physiology, New Delhi, Volume I (Eds Sinha, S. K., Sane, P. V., Bhargava, S. C. & Agarwal, P. K.), pp. 385–388. New Delhi: Society for Plant Physiology and Biochemistry.Google Scholar
Zambre, M. A., Konde, B. K. & Sonar, K. R. (1984). Effect of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azospirillum brasilense inoculation under graded levels of nitrogen on growth and yield of wheat. Plant and Soil 79, 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar