Phosphate-Solubilizing Bacteria as a Panacea to Alleviate Stress Effects of High Soil CaCO3 Content in Phaseolus vulgaris with Special Reference to P-Releasing Enzymes
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Plant Material, Growth Conditions, and Experimental Design
2.2. Preparation of Leguminous Compost
2.3. Phosphate-Solubilizing Bacteria (P-SB) Isolation and Identification
2.4. Preparation and Application of P-SB
2.5. Soil Enzyme Activity Assay
2.6. Assessments of Soil Properties
2.7. Growth and Yield Determinations
2.8. Determination of Leaf Contents of Nutrients
2.9. Acid Phosphatase Activity Assay
2.10. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Soil Characterization
3.2. Effects of the Different Treatments on Soil and Plant Parameters
3.3. Soil Enzymatic Activities
3.4. Soil Properties (Available P, OM, CaCO3, and CEC)
3.5. Nutrient Contents (Available N, K, Fe, and Mn)
3.6. Growth and Yield
3.7. Activity of Acid Phosphatase Enzyme
3.8. Leaf Macronutrient Contents
3.9. Leaf Micro-Nutrient Contents
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rady, M.M.; El-Shewy, A.A.; Seif El-Yazal, M.A.; Abd El-Gawwad, I.F.M. Integrative application of soil P-solubilizing bacteria and foliar nano p improves Phaseolus vulgaris plant performance and antioxidative defense system components under calcareous soil conditions. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 20, 820–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, A.A.; Jilani, G.; Akhtar, M.S.; Naqvi, S.M.S.; Rasheed, M. Phosphorus Solubilizing Bacteria: Occurrence, Mechanisms and their Role in Crop Production. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2009, 1, 48–58. [Google Scholar]
- Ezawa, T.; Smith, S.E.; Smith, F.A. P metabolism and transport in AM fungi. Plant Soil 2002, 244, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stauffer, M.D.; Sulewski, G. Fósforo essencial para a vida. In Fósforo na Agricultura Brasileira; Potafós: Piracicaba, Brazil, 2004; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Arcand, M.M.; Schneider, K.D. Plant- and microbial based mechanisms to improve the agronomic effectiveness of phosphate rock: A review. An. Acad. Bras. Ciên. 2006, 78, 791–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, P.X.; Ma, L.; Chen, M.H.; Xi, J.Q.; He, F.; Duan, C.Q.; Mo, M.H.; Fang, D.H.; Duan, Y.Q.; Yang, F.X. Phosphate solubilizing ability and phylogenetic diversity of bacteria from P-rich soils around Dianchi Lake drainage area of China. Pedosphere 2012, 22, 707–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, K.; Binkley, D.; Doxtader, K.G. New method for estimating gross P mineralization and mobilization rates in soils. Plant Soil 1992, 147, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cordell, D.; Drangert, J.O.; White, S. The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Global Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 292–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nautiyal, C.S.; Bhadauria, S.; Kumar, P.; Lal, H.; Mondal, R.; Verma, D. Stress induced phosphate solubilization in bacteria isolated from alkaline soils. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2000, 182, 291–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abd-Alla, M.H. Phosphatases and the utilization of organic P by Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viceae. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 1994, 18, 294–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matos, A.D.M.; Gomes, I.C.P.; Nietsche, S.; Xavier, A.A.; Gomes, W.S.; Nrto, J.A.D.S.; Pereira, M.C.T. Phosphate solubilization by endophytic bacteria isolated from banana trees. An. Acad. Bras. Ciên. 2017, 89, 2945–2954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Leytem, A.B.; Mikkelsen, R.L. The nature of phosphorus in calcareous soils. Better Crops 2005, 89, 11–13. [Google Scholar]
- Brady, N.C.; Weil, R.R. The Nature and Properties of Soils; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Abdelfattah, M.A. Land Degradation Indicators and Management Options in the Desert Environment of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Soil Surv. Horiz. J. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 2009, 50, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abdelfattah, M.A. Pedogenesis, land management and soil classification in hyper-arid environments: Results and implications from a case study in the United Arab Emirates. Soil Use Manag. J. 2013, 29, 279–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. FAO Soils Portal: Management of Calcareous Soils. 2016. Available online: http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-management/managementof-some-problem-soils/calcareous-soils/ar/ (accessed on 1 April 2016).
- Belal, E.E.; El Sowfy, D.M.; Rady, M.M. Integrative soil application of humic acid and sulfur improves saline calcareous soil properties and barley plant performance. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2019, 50, 1919–1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marschner, H. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 559–579. [Google Scholar]
- Ingle, K.P.; Padole, D.A. Phosphate Solubilizing Microbes: An Overview. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 844–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rady, M.M. Effects on growth, yield, and fruit quality in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) using a mixture of potassium humate and farmyard manure as an alternative to mineral-N fertiliser. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2011, 86, 249–254. [Google Scholar]
- Osman, A.S.; Rady, M.M. Ameliorative effects of sulphur and humic acid on the growth, antioxidant levels, and yields of pea (Pisum sativum L.) plants grown in reclaimed saline soil. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2012, 87, 626–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nardi, S.; Pizzeghello, D.; Muscolo, A.; Vianello, A. Physiological effects of humic substances on higher plants—A review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002, 30, 621–634. [Google Scholar]
- Desoky, E.M.; Merwad, A.M.; Rady, M.M. Natural biostimulants improve saline soil characteristics and salt stressed-sorghum performance. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2018, 49, 967–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cimrin, K.M.; Yilmaz, I. Humic acid applications to lettuce do not improve yield but do improve phosphorus availability. Acta Agric. Scand. B Soil Plant Sci. 2005, 55, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lobartini, J.C.; Orioli, G.A.; Tan, K.H. Characteristics of soil humic acid fractions separated by ultra-filtration. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1997, 28, 787–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hua, Q.X.; Li, J.Y.; Zhou, J.M.; Wang, H.Y.; Du, C.W.; Chen, X.Q. Enhancement of phosphorus solubility by humic substances in ferrosols. Pedosphere 2008, 18, 533–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asik, B.B.; Turan, M.A.; Celik, H.; Katkat, A.V. Effects of humic substances on plant growth and mineral nutrients uptake by wheat (Triticum Durum, L. Salihli cv.) under conditions of salinity. Asian J. Crop Sci. 2009, 1, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Çelik, H.; Katkat, A.V.; Aşık, B.B.; Turan, M.A. Effects of soil application of humus on dry weight and mineral nutrients uptake of maize under calcareous soıl conditions. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2008, 54, 605–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katkat, A.V.; Celik, H.; Turan, M.A.; Asik, J.B.B. Effect of soil and foliar application of humic substances on dry weight and mineral uptake of wheat under calcareous soil conditions. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2009, 3, 1266–1273. [Google Scholar]
- Mohamed, W.S.; Sherif, M.A.; Youssef, I.A. Effect of some natural organic and inorganic materials on some soil properties and growth in sandy calcareous soil. Minia J. Agric. Res. 2008, 28, 331–349. [Google Scholar]
- Ashour, I.A. Organic manure as soil conditioner for calcareous soil irrigated with saline water. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2003, 4, 413–426. [Google Scholar]
- Abdel-Aziz, T.H.M. Studies on the Use of Some Soil Conditioner in Reclaimed Desertic soil. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Benha University, Moshtahar, Egypt, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Abou Hussien, E.A.; Nada, W.M.; Elgezery, M.K. Influence of Sulphur Compost Application on Some Chemical Properties of Calcareous Soil and Consequent Responses of HordeumVulgare L. Plants. Egypt. J. Soil. Sci. 2020, 60, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Krasilinikov, N.A. On the role of soil micro-organism in plant nutrition. Microbiologiya 1957, 26, 659–672. [Google Scholar]
- Sharon, J.A.; Hathwaik, L.T.; Glenn, G.M.; Imam, S.H.; Lee, C.C. Isolation of efficient phosphate solubilizing bacteria capable of enhancing tomato plant growth. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2016, 16, 525–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vyas, P.; Gulati, A. Organic acid production in vitro and plant growth promotion in maize under controlled environment by phosphate-solubilizing fluorescent Pseudomonas. BMC Microbiol. 2009, 9, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Verma, S.C.; Ladha, J.K.; Tripathi, A.K. Evaluation of plant growth promoting and colonization ability of endophytic diazotrophs from deep water rice. J. Biotechnol. 2001, 91, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garg, S.K.; Bhatnagar, A.; Kalla, A.; Narula, N. In vitro fixation, phosphate solubilization, survival and nutrient release by Azotobacter strains in aquatic system. Bioresour. Technol. 2001, 80, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGill, W.B.; Cole, C.V. Comparative aspects of cycling of organic C, N, S and P through soil organic matter. Geoderma 1981, 26, 267–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, X.K.; Ma, J.J.; Liu, L.J. Effects of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria application on soil phosphorus availability in coal mining subsidence area in Shanxi. J. Plant Interact. 2017, 12, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Acevedo, E.; Galindo-Castañeda, T.; Prada, F.; Navia, M.; Romero, H.M. Phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms associated with the rhizosphere of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) in Colombia. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2014, 80, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Z.; Peng, Y.; Guo, L.; Li, C. Root colonization of encapsulated Klebsiella oxytoca Rs-5 on cotton plants and its promoting growth performance under salinity stress. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2014, 60, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anzuay, M.S.; Frola, O.; Angelini, J.G.; Ludueña, L.M.; Ibañez, F.; Fabra, A.; Taurian, T. Effect of pesticides application on peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) associated phosphate solubilizing soil bacteria. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2015, 95, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sultana, R.; Choudhary, A.K.; Pal, A.K.; Saxina, K.B.; Prasad, B.D.; Singh, R. Abiotic stresses in major pulses: Current status and strategies. In Approaches to Plants Stress and Their Management; Gaur, R.K., Sharma, P., Eds.; Springer: Delhi, India, 2014; pp. 173–190. [Google Scholar]
- Bargaz, A.; Nassar, R.M.A.; Rady, M.M.; Gaballah, M.S.; Thompson, S.M.; Brestic, M.; Schmidhalter, U.; Abdelhamid, M.T. Improved salinity tolerance by phosphorus fertilizer in two Phaseolus vulgaris recombinant inbred lines contrasting in their P-efficiency. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2016, 202, 497–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, A.I.; Miller, R.H.; Keeny, D.R. Methods of soil analysis. In Part II. Chemical and Microbiological Methods, 2nd ed.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 225–246. [Google Scholar]
- Walpola, B.C.; Rhan, H. Isolation and characterization of phosphate-solubilizing and heavy metal tolerant bacteria from agricultural fields in Matara District, Sri Lanka. Trop. Agric. Res. Ext. J. 2018, 21, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ahemad, M. Phosphate-solubilizing bacteria-assisted phytoremediation of metalliferous soils: A review. 3 Biotech 2015, 5, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, Y.P.; Rekha, P.D.; Arun, A.B.; Shen, F.T.; Lai, W.A.; Young, C.C. Phosphate solubilizing bacteria from subtropical soil and their tricalcium phosphate solubilizing abilities. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2006, 34, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulati, A.; Sharma, N.; Vyas, P.; Sood, S.; Rahi, P.; Pathania, V.; Prasad, R. Organic acid production and plant growth promotion as a function of phosphate solubilization by Acinetobacter rhizosphaerae strain BIHB 723 isolated from the cold deserts of the trans-Himalayas. Arch. Microbiol. 2010, 192, 975–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stefanoni Rubio, P.J.; Godoy, M.S.; DellaMónica, I.F.; Pettinari, M.J.; Godeas, A.M.; Scervino, J.M. Carbon and nitrogen sources influence tricalcium phosphate solubilization and extracellular phosphatase activity by talaromyces flavus. Curr. Microbiol. 2016, 72, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mahdi, I.; Fahsi, N.; Hafidi, M.; Benjelloun, S.; Allaoui, A.; Biskri, L. Rhizospheric Phosphate Solubilizing Bacillus atrophaeus GQJK17 S8 Increases Quinoa Seedling, Withstands Heavy Metals, and Mitigates Salt Stress. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klute, A.; Dirksen, C. Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity. Laboratory methods. Methods of Soil Analysis-Part 1. Phys. Mineral. Methods 1986, 9, 687–734. [Google Scholar]
- Guan, S.Y. Soil Enzyme and Its Research Methods; Agriculture Press: Beijing, China, 1986; pp. 206–239. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- George, T.S.; Richardson, A.E.; Simpson, R.J. Behaviour of plant-derived extracellular phytase upon addition to soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2005, 37, 977–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giaveno, C.; Celi, L.; Richardson, A.E.; Simpson, R.J.; Barberis, E. Interaction of phytases with minerals and availability of substrate affect the hydrolysis of inositol phosphates. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2010, 42, 491–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irving, G.C.J.; McLaughlin, M.J. A rapid and simple field test for phosphorus in Olsen and Bray No. 1 extracts of soil 1. Commun. Soil. Sci. Plant Anal. 1990, 21, 2245–2255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, E.J. Micro-Analysis in Medical Biochemistry; J. & A. Churchill: London, UK, 1951. [Google Scholar]
- Olsen, S.R. Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soils by Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate; US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1954. [Google Scholar]
- Chapman, H. Cation-exchange capacity. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2. Chem. Microbiol. Prop. 1965, 9, 891–901. [Google Scholar]
- Besford, R.T. Phosphorus Nutrition and Acid Phosphatase Activity in The Leaves of Seven Plant Species. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1979, 30, 281–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, R.B. Characterisation of Phosphatase of Intact Maize Roots. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1975, 23, 458–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levene, H. Robust tests for equality of variances. In Contributions to Probability and Statistics. Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling; Stanford University Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1961; pp. 279–292. [Google Scholar]
- Shapiro, S.S.; Wilk, M.B. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 1965, 52, 591–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdi, H. Bonferroni and Sidak corrections for multiple comparisons. In Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics; Salkind, N.J., Ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007; pp. 103–107. [Google Scholar]
- Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed.; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Aboukila, E.F.; Nassar, I.N.; Rashad, M.; Hafez, M.; Norton, J.B. Reclamation of calcareous soil and improvement of squash growth using brewers’ spent grain and compost. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2018, 17, 390–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Manirakiza, N.; Şeker, C. Effects of compost and biochar amendments on soil fertility and crop growth in a calcareous soil. J. Plant Nutr. 2020, 43, 3002–3019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hegazi, I.M.A. Maximizing wheat production in sandy soil by using some natural soil amendments. Egypt. J. Appl. Sci. 2004, 19, 214–226. [Google Scholar]
- Seyedbagheri, M. Influence of humic products on soil health and potato production. Potato Res. 2010, 53, 341–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abou Zied, M.M.A.; Habashy, N.R.; Wahdan, A.A.A. Utilization of some organic polymers and humic acids for improving a sandy soil productivity of peanut and their residual effects on the next crop of faba bean. Fayoum J. Agric. Res. Dev. 2005, 19, 42–55. [Google Scholar]
- Mahmoud, M.M.; Hassanien, A.H.A.; Mansour, S.F.; Khalefa, A.M. Effect of soil and foliar application of humic acid on growth and productivity of soybean plants grown on a calcareous soil under different levels of mineral fertilizers. J. Soil Sci. Agric. Engin. 2011, 2, 881–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- David, P.P.; Nelson, P.V.; Sanders, D.C. A humic acid improves growth of tomato seedling in solution culture. J. Plant Nutr. 1994, 17, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulukan, H. Effect of soil applied humic acid at different sowing times on some yield components in wheat (Triticum spp.) hybirds. Int. J. Bot. 2008, 4, 164–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calvo, P.; Nelson, L.; Kloepper, J.W. Agricultural uses of plant biostimulants. Plant Soil 2014, 383, 3–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Quilty, J.; Cattle, S. Use and understanding of organic amendments in australian agriculture: A review. Soil Res. 2011, 49, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khaled, H.; Fawy, H.A. Effect of different levels of humic acids on the nutrient content, plant growth and soil properties under conditions of salinity. Soil Water Res. 2011, 6, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kulikova, N.A.; Stepanova, E.V.; Koroleva, O.V. Mitigating activity of humic substances: Direct influence on biota. In Use of Humic Substances to Remediate Polluted Environments: From Theory to Practice; Perminova, I.V., Ed.; NATO Science Series IV: Earth and Environmental Series; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 2005; pp. 285–309. ISBN 978-1402032509. [Google Scholar]
- Fischer, D.; Glaser, B. Synergisms between compost and biochar for sustainable soil amelioration. In Management of Organic Waste; Kumar, S., Ed.; InTech: London, UK, 2012; pp. 168–198. ISBN 978-953-307-925-7. [Google Scholar]
- Ghosh, S.; Ow, L.F.; Wilson, B. Influence of biochar and compost on soil properties and tree growth in a tropical urban environment. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 12, 1303–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Naeem, M.A.; Khalid, M.; Aon, M.; Abbas, G.; Amjad, G.; Murtaza, B.; Khan, W.U.D.; Ahmad, N. Combined application of biochar with compost and fertilizer improves soil properties and grain yield of maize. J. Plant Nutr. 2018, 41, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, Y.; Gao, B.; Zhang, M.; Inyang, M.; Zimmerman, A.R. Effect of biochar amendment on sorption and leaching of nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate in a sandy soil. Chemosphere 2012, 89, 1467–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, G.; Sun, J.; Shao, H.; Chang, S.X. Biochar had effects on phosphorus sorption and desorption in three soils with differing acidity. Ecol. Engin. 2014, 62, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Schulz Brandl, S.; Miehtke, H.; Huwe, B.; Glaser, B. Short-term effect of biochar and compost on soil fertility and water status of a Dystric Cambisol in NE Germany under field conditions. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2012, 175, 698–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sohi, S.; Lopez-Capel, E.; Krull, E.; Bol, R. Biochar, climate change and soil: A review to guide future research. CSIRO Land Water Sci. Rep. 2009, 5, 17–31. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, C.; Jacobsen, J. Plant nutrition and soil fertility. Nutr. Manag. Modul. 2005, 2, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Doan, T.T.; Henry-Des-Tureaux, T.; Rumpel, C.; Janeau, J.L.; Jouquet, P. Impact of compost, vermicompost and biochar on soil fertility, maize yield and soil erosion in Northern Vietnam: A three-year mesocosm experiment. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 514, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nur, M.S.M.; Islami, T.; Handayanto, E.; Nugroho, W.H.; Utomo, W.H. The use of biochar fortified compost on calcareous soil of East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia: 2. Effect on the yield of maize (Zea mays L.) and phosphate absorption. Am. Eurasian J. Sust. Agric. 2014, 8, 105–111. [Google Scholar]
- Inal, A.; Gunes, A.; Sahin, O.; Taskin, M.; Kaya, E. Impacts of biochar and processed poultry manure, applied to a calcareous soil, on the growth of bean and maize. Soil Use Manag. 2015, 31, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitriatin, B.N.; Yuniarti, A.; Turmuktini, T.; Ruswandi, F.K. The effect of phosphate solubilizing microbe producing growth regulators on soil phosphate, growth and yield of maize and fertilizer efficiency on ultisol. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2014, 3, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Bai, T.; Dai, L.; Wang, F.; Tao, J.; Meng, S.; Hu, Y.; Wang, S.; Hu, S. A study of organic acid production in contrasts between two phosphate solubilizing fungi: Penicillium oxalicum and Aspergillus niger. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 25313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alori, E.T.; Glick, B.R.; Babalola, O.O. Microbial phosphorus solubilization and its potential for use in sustainable agriculture. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sharma, S.B.; Sayyed, R.Z.; Trivedi, M.H.; Gobi, T.A. Phosphate solubilizing microbes: Sustainable approach for managing phosphorus deficiency in agricultural soils. SpringerPlus 2013, 2, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kaya, C. Effect of supplementary phosphorus on acid phosphatase enzyme activity and membrane permeability of zinc-toxic tomato plants. J. Plant Nutr. 2002, 25, 599–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Soil Properties | Values |
---|---|
Clay (%) | 50.2 ± 2.4 |
Silt (%) | 29.6 ± 1.6 |
Sand (%) | 20.2 ± 1.4 |
Soil texture | Clay |
pH | 8.15 ± 0.41 |
EC (dS m−1) | 2.30 ± 0.14 |
Organic matter (%) | 0.54 ± 0.03 |
CaCO3 (%) | 19.6 ± 1.5 |
CEC (cmolc kg−1) | 5.82 ± 0.34 |
Available macro- and micronutrients (mg kg−1 soil) | |
Available N | 8.42 ± 0.51 |
Available P | 3.41 ± 0.16 |
Available K | 14.7 ± 0.96 |
Available Fe | 4.71 ± 0.28 |
Available Mn | 3.34 ± 0.19 |
Available Zn | 2.10 ± 0.13 |
Treatments | Parameters | |
---|---|---|
Phosphatase (mg P2O5 100 g−1 h−1) | Phytase (nKat g−1 soil) | |
Season (S) | * | * |
Fall season, 2019 | 1.67 ± 0.11b | 13.44± 0.92b |
Summer season, 2020 | 2.03 ± 0.14a | 15.52 ± 0.99a |
Sampling time (ST) | ** | * |
At 45 days after sowing | 1.69 ± 0.11b | 13.28 ± 0.87b |
After plant harvesting | 2.01 ± 0.14a | 15.69 ± 1.02a |
Soil reatments (STR) | * | * |
Control | 0.69 ± 0.01e | 6.43 ± 0.42e |
LC | 1.80 ± 0.11d | 12.34 ± 0.24d |
HA | 1.89 ± 0.08c | 14.74 ± 0.56c |
HA-LC | 2.31 ± 0.08b | 18.60 ± 0.63b |
P-SB | 2.56 ± 0.12a | 20.30 ± 0.83a |
Fixed Term | Phosphatase (mg P2O5 100 g−1 h−1) | Phytase (nK at g–1 Soil) | Available P (mg kg−1 Soil) | OM (%) | CaCO3 (%) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Walid Statistics | χ2 Prob | Walid Statistics | χ2 Prob | Walid Statistics | χ2 Prob | Walid Statistics | χ2 Prob | Walid Statistics | χ2 Prob | |
Time (T) | 137.27 | <0.001 ** | 109.94 | <0.001 ** | 4087.62 | <0.001 ** | 0.55 | 0.499 ns | 125.35 | <0.001 ** |
Season (S) | 174.85 | <0.001 ** | 102.83 | <0.001 ** | 40.57 | <0.001 ** | 1.66 | 0.206 ns | 0.01 | 0.918 ns |
Soil Treatments (STR) | 2182.46 | <0.001 ** | 2290.08 | <0.001 ** | 34,501.51 | <0.001 ** | 81.87 | <0.001 ** | 1078.37 | <0.001 ** |
T × S | 0.64 | 0.427 ns | 1.65 | 0.206 ns | 7.22 | 0.01 ** | 0.77 | 0.387 ns | 0.1 | 0.751 |
T × STR | 53.31 | <0.001 ** | 36.04 | <0.001 ** | 376.29 | <0.001 ** | 2.45 | 0.657 ns | 30.07 | <0.001 ** |
S × STR | 42.8 | <0.001 ** | 15.89 | 0.009 ** | 19.26 | 0.003 ** | 16.16 | 0.008 ** | 4.96 | 0.311 ns |
T × S × STR | 0.37 | 0.984 ns | 6.52 | 0.188 ns | 113.86 | <0.001 ** | 1.21 | 0.875 ns | 75.68 | <0.001 ** |
Fixed Term | CEC (cmolc kg−1) | Available N (mg kg−1 Soil) | Available K | Available Fe | Available Mn | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Walid Statistics | χ2 Prob | Walid Statistics | χ2 Prob | Walid Statistics | χ2 Prob | Walid Statistics | χ2 Prob | Walid Statistics | χ2 Prob | |
Time (T) | 1294.89 | <0.001 ** | 2326.32 | <0.001 ** | 680.91 | <0.001 ** | 742.58 | <0.001 ** | 3540.41 | <0.001 ** |
Season (S) | 782.11 | <0.001 ** | 3850 | <0.001 ** | 790.24 | <0.001 ** | 826.81 | <0.001 ** | 4558.12 | <0.001 ** |
Soil Treatments (STR) | 12,005.47 | <0.001 ** | 338,970.44 | <0.001 ** | 18,604.47 | <0.001 ** | 14,046.5 | <0.001** | 18,728.89 | <0.001 ** |
T × S | 202.57 | <0.001 ** | 0.01 | 0.939 ns | 0.03 | 0.86 ns | 0.55 | 0.464 ns | 2.15 | 0.151 ns |
T × STR | 485.45 | <0.001 ** | 78.4 | <0.001 ** | 69.4 | <0.001 ** | 116.61 | <0.001 ** | 582.02 | <0.001 ** |
S × STR | 129.48 | <0.001 ** | 60.88 | <0.001 ** | 77.63 | <0.001 ** | 87.67 | <0.001 ** | 495.15 | <0.001 ** |
T × S × STR | 322.5 | <0.001 ** | 5.96 | 0.226 ns | 2.21 | 0.698 | 0.26 | 0.992ns | 4.06 | 0.412 ns |
Treatments | Parameters | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Available P (mg kg−1 Soil) | OM (%) | CaCO3 (%) | CEC (cmolc kg−1) | |
Season (S) | ||||
Fall season, 2019 | 15.21 ± 1.44b | 0.82 ± 0.04a | 16.85 ± 0.36a | 10.91 ± 0.67b |
Summer season, 2020 | 15.72 ± 1.48a | 0.77 ± 0.05a | 16.86 ± 0.37b | 12.73 ± 0.81a |
Sampling time (ST) | ||||
At 45 days after sowing | 12.92 ± 1.26b | 0.78 ± 0.05a | 17.55 ± 0.32a | 10.44 ± 0.62b |
After plant harvesting | 18.01 ± 1.50a | 0.82 ± 0.06a | 16.16 ± 0.35a | 13.21 ± 0.80a |
Soil treatments (STR) | ||||
Control | 3.41 ± 0.30a | 0.51 ± 0.03a | 19.36 ± 0.30a | 5.82 ± 0.21a |
LC | 11.56 ± 0.86b | 0.80 ± 0.04b | 17.81 ± 0.23b | 11.24 ± 0.43b |
HA | 17.51 ± 0.92c | 0.74 ± 0.04b | 17.04 ± 0.35c | 11.21 ± 0.76b |
HA-LC | 10.02 ± 0.93d | 0.87 ± 0.03b | 15.51 ± 0.20d | 14.76 ± 0.94c |
P-SB | 24.82 ± 0.91e | 1.07 ± 0.09c | 14.54 ± 0.31e | 16.08 ± 0.34d |
Treatments | Parameters | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Available N | Available K | Available Fe | Available Mn | |
(mg kg−1 soil) | ||||
Season (S) | ||||
Fall season, 2019 | 34.51 ± 2.91b | 27.87 ±1.64b | 8.83 ± 0.55b | 5.81 ± 0.41b |
Summer season, 2020 | 37.84 ± 2.92a | 31.64 ± 1.83a | 10.27 ± 0.59a | 7.97 ± 0.52a |
Sampling time (ST) | ||||
At 45 days after sowing | 34.52 ± 2.91b | 28.00 ± 1.65b | 8.86 ± 0.55b | 5.78 ± 0.40b |
After plant harvesting | 37.83 ± 2.92a | 31.50 ± 1.83a | 10.23 ± 0.59a | 7.99 ± 0.52a |
Soil treatments (STR) | ||||
Control | 8.46 ± 0.65a | 14.73 ± 0.42a | 4.68 ± 0.21a | 3.36 ± 0.21a |
LC | 34.22 ± 0.86b | 30.27 ± 0.6b | 9.71 ± 0.22b | 6.33 ± 0.42b |
HA | 36.72 ± 0.65c | 26.15 ± 0.80c | 8.36 ± 0.41c | 6.51 ± 0.44b |
HA-LC | 47.44 ± 0.61d | 36.11 ± 1.05d | 11.59 ± 0.21d | 8.38 ± 0.56d |
P-SB | 54.04 ± 0.78e | 41.52 ± 1.30e | 13.39 ± 0.45e | 9.86 ± 0.62e |
Treatments | Parameters | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Growth Traits | Green and Dry Yield | |||
Shoot Fresh Weight (g) | Shoot Dry Weight (g) | Green Pods Weight Plant−1 (G) | Dry Seeds Weight Plant−1 (g) | |
Season (S) | * | * | * | * |
Fall season, 2019 | 23.4 ± 2.1b | 3.31 ± 0.24b | 40.8 ± 3.3b | 9.05 ± 0.68b |
Summer season, 2020 | 29.4 ± 2.5a | 4.12 ± 0.29a | 46.6 ± 3.9a | 10.66 ± 0.85a |
Soil treatments (STR) | * | * | ** | ** |
Control | 14.7 ± 1.3d | 1.92 ± 0.14d | 11.8 ± 1.0d | 2.26 ± 0.21e |
LC | 25.8 ± 2.2c | 3.59 ± 0.24c | 32.3 ± 2.7c | 7.09 ± 0.50d |
HA | 26.0 ± 2.3c | 3.64 ± 0.26c | 33.8 ± 2.9c | 7.71 ± 0.60c |
HA-LC | 31.1 ± 2.7b | 4.52 ± 0.33b | 63.4 ± 5.4b | 13.94 ± 1.04b |
P-SB | 34.4 ± 3.2a | 4.94 ± 0.36a | 77.3 ± 6.2a | 18.29 ± 1.48a |
Significance | ||||
S × STR | * | * | * | * |
Treatments | Parameters | |
---|---|---|
Phosphatase Activity in Leaves (µM P-Nitrophenol g‒1 Leaf h‒1) | Phosphatase Activity in Roots (µM P-Nitrophenol g‒1 Root h‒1) | |
Season (S) | * | * |
Fall season, 2019 | 20.8 ± 0.68a | 61.5 ± 1.3a |
Summer season, 2020 | 18.6 ± 0.52b | 55.9 ± 1.0b |
Soil treatments (STR) | * | ** |
Control | 31.8 ± 1.0a | 95.0 ± 2.4a |
LC | 20.8 ± 0.7b | 61.0 ± 1.2b |
HA | 19.4 ± 0.6b | 56.8 ± 1.2b |
HA-LC | 14.4 ± 0.4c | 46.9 ± 0.7c |
P-SB | 12.2 ± 0.4d | 33.9 ± 0.5d |
Significance | ||
S × STR | * | * |
Treatments | Parameters | ||
---|---|---|---|
N (mg g−1 DW) | P (mg g−1 DW) | K (mg g−1 DW) | |
Season (S) | * | * | * |
Fall season, 2019 | 21.7 ± 0.5b | 2.22 ± 0.11b | 22.4 ± 0.5b |
Summer season, 2020 | 25.4 ± 0.6a | 2.58 ± 0.13a | 26.3 ± 1.0a |
Soil treatments (STR) | * | ** | * |
Control | 14.9 ± 0.3d | 0.80 ± 0.02e | 17.4 ± 0.4d |
LC | 24.2 ± 0.5c | 1.64 ± 0.12d | 23.5 ± 0.6c |
HA | 24.7 ± 0.6c | 2.45 ± 0.13c | 23.7 ± 0.7c |
HA-LC | 26.2 ± 0.6b | 2.97 ± 0.15b | 26.5 ± 0.9b |
P-SB | 27.9 ± 0.8a | 3.41 ± 0.17a | 30.8 ± 1.1a |
Significance | |||
S × STR | Ns | * | * |
Treatments | Parameters | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Fe (mg kg‒1 DW) | Mn (mg kg‒1 DW) | Zn (mg kg‒1 DW) | Cu (mg kg‒1 DW) | |
Season (S) | * | * | * | * |
Fall season, 2019 | 288 ± 17b | 217 ± 13b | 133 ± 6b | 90 ± 2b |
Summer season, 2020 | 326 ± 19a | 237 ± 14a | 146 ± 7a | 100 ± 3a |
Soil treatments (STR) | * | * | * | * |
Control | 216 ± 12d | 136 ± 7d | 81 ± 2d | 48 ± 1d |
LC | 292 ± 13c | 216 ± 11c | 130 ± 6c | 94 ± 2c |
HA | 299 ± 16c | 230 ± 12c | 133 ± 7c | 97 ± 3c |
HA-LC | 346 ± 22b | 266 ± 17b | 163 ± 9b | 111 ± 4b |
P-SB | 382 ± 28a | 287 ± 19a | 191 ± 11a | 128 ± 5a |
Significance | ||||
S × STR | ns | * | * | * |
Parameters | Control | Soil Treatments | Season | Sampling Date | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LC | HA | LC-HA | P-SB | F-2019 | S-2020 | 45 DAS | APH | ||
Soil phosphatase act. | d | +150.0c | +163.9c | +218.1b | +256.9a | +81.9b | +233.3a | +134.7b | +180.6a |
Soil phytase act. | e | +101.4d | +136.3c | +192.4b | +221.6a | +68.7b | +191.9a | +110.9b | +149.8a |
Soil P content | e | +24.0d | +395.6c | +463.0b | +624.3a | +181.5b | +527.6a | +278.3b | +430.8a |
Soil OM content | d | +59.3c | +48.1c | +70.4b | +88.9a | +40.7b | +81.5a | +57.4a | +64.8a |
Soil CaCO3 content | a | −9.7b | −12.2c | −20.9d | −25.5e | −5.6a | −9.2a | −3.6a | −11.2b |
Soil CEC | d | +91.4c | +92.8c | +145.4b | +182.8a | +45.4b | +161.9a | +63.6b | +143.6a |
Soil N content | d | +305.0c | +335.9c | +462.9b | +541.3a | +180.3b | +528.3a | +277.7b | +430.9a |
Soil K content | e | +104.8c | +78.9d | +144.9b | +183.0a | +44.9b | +161.9a | +88.4b | +118.4a |
Soil Fe content | e | +106.4c | +77.9d | +145.4b | +184.9a | +45.4b | +161.8a | +86.4b | +120.8a |
Soil Mn content | d | +91.3c | +95.8c | +151.5b | +195.2a | +42.2b | +165.0a | +66.5b | +140.7a |
Shoot fresh weight | d | +75.5c | +76.9c | +111.6b | +134.0a | +59.2b | +100.0a | ||
Shoot dry weight | d | +87.0c | +89.6c | +135.4b | +157.3a | +72.4b | +114.6a | ||
Pods weight plant‒1 | d | +173.7c | +186.4c | +437.3b | +555.1a | +245.8b | +294.9a | ||
Seeds weight plant‒1 | e | +213.7d | +241.2c | +516.8b | +709.3a | +300.4b | +371.7a | ||
Leaf phosphatase act. | a | −34.6b | −39.0b | −54.7c | −61.6d | −34.6a | −41.5b | ||
Root phosphatase act. | a | −35.8b | −40.2b | −50.6c | −64.3d | −35.3a | −41.2b | ||
Leaf N content | d | +62.4c | +65.8c | +75.8b | +87.2a | +45.6b | +70.5a | ||
Leaf P content | e | +105.0d | +206.3c | +271.3b | +326.3a | +177.5b | +222.5a | ||
Leaf K content | d | +35.1c | +36.2c | +52.3b | +77.0a | +28.7b | +51.1a | ||
Leaf Fe content | d | +35.2c | +38.4c | +60.2b | +76.9a | +33.3b | +50.9a | ||
Leaf Mn content | d | +58.8c | +69.1c | +95.6b | +111.0a | +59.6b | +74.3a | ||
Leaf Zn content | d | +60.5c | +64.2c | +101.2b | +135.8a | +64.2b | +80.2a | ||
Leaf Cu content | d | +95.8c | +102.1c | +131.3b | +166.7a | +87.5b | +108.3a |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bamagoos, A.A.; Alharby, H.F.; Belal, E.E.; Khalaf, A.E.A.; Abdelfattah, M.A.; Rady, M.M.; Ali, E.F.; Mersal, G.A.M. Phosphate-Solubilizing Bacteria as a Panacea to Alleviate Stress Effects of High Soil CaCO3 Content in Phaseolus vulgaris with Special Reference to P-Releasing Enzymes. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7063. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13137063
Bamagoos AA, Alharby HF, Belal EE, Khalaf AEA, Abdelfattah MA, Rady MM, Ali EF, Mersal GAM. Phosphate-Solubilizing Bacteria as a Panacea to Alleviate Stress Effects of High Soil CaCO3 Content in Phaseolus vulgaris with Special Reference to P-Releasing Enzymes. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7063. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13137063
Chicago/Turabian StyleBamagoos, Atif A., Hesham F. Alharby, Eman E. Belal, Ahmed E. A. Khalaf, Mahmoud A. Abdelfattah, Mostafa M. Rady, Esmat F. Ali, and Gaber A. M. Mersal. 2021. "Phosphate-Solubilizing Bacteria as a Panacea to Alleviate Stress Effects of High Soil CaCO3 Content in Phaseolus vulgaris with Special Reference to P-Releasing Enzymes" Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7063. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13137063