The presentation includes detailed information about the mode of action of different biofertilizers including plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. By the use of different biofertilizers, we can minimize the quantity of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals. use of biofertilizers enhances plant growth with increased yield and quality sustainably. it also includes some case studies which confirm the beneficial use of biofertilizers and PGPR.

1. 1

2. 2

3. 3

4. Production of Urea, DAP and Complex fertilizers (Fig. in LMT)
2016-17 2017 -18 (Estimated)
S. No Sector Urea DAP Complex Urea DAP Complex
1 Public 71.41 - 11.72 69.71 - 13.10
2 Cooperative 66.81 17.87 23. 50 64.00 19.84 20.62
3 Private 103.79 25.78 44. 44 108 .80 30.52 56.66
Total 242.01 43.65 79. 66 242.51 50.36 90.38
This data full fills 25% of Urea, 90% of Phosphate and 100% of Potash
Source: Annual Report 2017-18: Government of India Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers Department of Fertilizers
1st farm outputs.
17-18% to country's GDP (Anon. 2019)
2nd in fruits and vegetables production
Horticultural production : 311.71 Million Tonnes during 2017-18
(Anon. 2019b).
4

5. (Gyaneshwar et al., 2002; Hao et al., 2002).
These lower efficiencies are due to significant losses of
nutrients by leaching, run-off, gaseous emission and
fixation by soil. (Baligar et al. 2001)
Efficiency of N fertilizer use seldom exceeds 40 %, in case of P and
micronutrients the efficiency is only 20 % and 2 %, respectively and for K, the
efficiency is about 50 %. (Kumar et al. 2018)
Applied P
fertilizers
Precipitation reaction
with Al3+ and Fe3+
in Acidic soils,
Ca2+ in Normal Soils
Immobilization
Efficiency 25%
throughout the world
(Isherword, 1998)
5

6. Biofertilizer: Biofertilizers are substances which contain living microorganisms which,
when applied to seed, plant surfaces, or soil, colonize the rhizosphere or the interior
of the plant, and promote growth by increasing the supply or availability of primary
nutrients to the host plant (Vessey 2003).
• Identified by a Dutch scientist in 1888
• ‘Nobbe & Hiltner’ produced for the first biofertilizer Nitragin in 1895 in USA.
6

7. S. No. Groups Examples
N2 fixing Biofertilizers
1. Free-living Azotobacter, Beijerinkia, Clostridium, Klebsiella
2. Symbiotic Rhizobium, Frankia, Anabaena azollae
3. Associative Symbiotic Azospirillum
P Solubilizing Biofertilizers
1. Bacteria Bacillus megaterium var. phosphaticum, Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus circulans, Pseudomonas striata
2. Fungi Penicillium sp, Aspergillus awamori
P Mobilizing Biofertilizers
1. Arbuscular mycorrhiza Glomus sp.,Gigaspora sp.,Acaulospora sp.,
Scutellospora sp. & Sclerocystis sp.
Biofertilizers for Micro nutrients
1. Silicate and Zinc
solubilizers
Bacillus sp.
Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria
1. Pseudomonas Pseudomonas fluorescens
Source: TNAU Agritech Portal-2008 7

8. Provides
micronutrients
Secretes growth
hormones
Improves
soil fertility
Suppress
pathogen
growth
Provides macro
nutrients
Increases crop
productivity
Safe application
Not harmful
to plants
Reproducible
No development
of resistance
Reduces usage
of chemical
fertilizers
Low cost
Eco-friendly,
Sustainable
Gaur (2010),
Rao et al. (2014)8

9. Bio-fertilizer Crop Increase in yield (%) References
Rhizobium Pea 13.38 Kanaujia et al. (1999)
Azotobacter Cabbage 24.30 Verma et al. (1997)
Garlic 14.23 Anonymous (2003)
Knol khol 9.60 Chatto et al. (1997)
Azospirillum Cabbage 11.87 Verma et al. (1997)
Onion 21.68 Anonymous (2002)
Radish 9.00 Sundaravelu and
Mutukrishna (1993)
Sweet potato 8.50 Desmond et al. (1990)
Rao et al. (2014)5
9

10. 1: Shahzad et al. (2017)
2: Shi et al.(2016)
3: Alarcon et al. (2012)
4: Date palm seedlings inoculated (B) or uninoculated (A) with a commercial
mycorrhizae inoculum (German BioMycTM Vital, Germany). (Albers, 2009).
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Date-palm-seedlings-inoculated-B-or-
uninoculated-A-with-a-commercial-mycorrhizae_fig2_272793385
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens
RWL-1
10

11. 11

12. Increased
Root elongation,
Root surface area,
Root dry matter,
Development of lateral roots
Root hairs
Bashan and Holguin (1997),
Bashan et al. (2004), Khawas and Adachi (1999)
The exact mechanism of how Azospirillum interacts with the plant roots is not yet
fully understood (Steenhoudt and Vanderleyden , 2000)
12

13. Colonization of wheat root
surface by several strains of
A. brasilense at different
magnifications: Pereg et al.
2000
The electron micrograph
of Azospirillum brasilense with
long flagella:
http://web.mst.edu/~microbio/BI
O221_1999/A_brasilense.html
13

14. • Protect plants from pathogens and
adverse environmental conditions, especially drought.
Vesicles: Nutrient storage structures
Arbuscules: Nutrient exchange structures.Naik et al. (2018)
14

15. https://gpnmag.com/article/the-role-of-arbuscular-mycorrhizal-fungi-in-plant-nutrition/
VAM power: 120 Rs/Kg
(indiamart.com)
15

16. Ahmed and Shahab (2009), Alghazali et al. (1986), Khan et al. (2009)
16

17. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5454063/ 17

18. • Pseudomonas fluorescens secretes :
Anti-fungal metabolite 2,4-diacetyl phloroglucinol (Delany et al. 2000),
An antibiotic compound, pyrollnitrin Karunanithi et al. (2000) ,
• Inactivate cell wall degrading enzymes of plant pathogenic fungi Borowicz et al.
(1992)
Olive root hairs colonised on the surface by the
beneficial bacteria Pseudomonas fluorescens PICF7.
http://www.ias.csic.es/pilar-prieto-
lab/gallery/roothairsf7surf/
https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/antimicrobial-
surfaces/expertise/electron-microscopy/
18

19. Lopez-Cervantes and Thorpe (2013),
Sekar et al. (2016) 19

20. • Arka Microbial consortium is a carrier based microbial product that contains N fixing, P & Zn
solubilizing and plant growth promoting microbes in single carrier.
• This product is supplied through the Agricultural Technology Information Centre, IIHR (Rs. 75/kg).
• Novelty of the Microbial Consortium:
Combination of N fixing, P & Zn solubilizing and PGPMs in single carrier,
No need of individual inoculants
Reduces 25 % of inorganic fertilizer application (N and P)
Yield increase of 10.0 – 16.0 % in different vegetable crops
• Methods of Application:
• Seed treatment
• Coco peat enrichment: 1kg AMC/t of coco peat.
• Soil Drenching: AMC @ 20 g/ lit
• Biofertigation
• Main field application: 5kg AMC + 500 kg FYM for 1 acre of area
Panneerselvam et al.(2012)
http://www.best-biopesticides-online.com/
https://www.indiamart.com/proddetail/amc-arka-microbial-
consortium-20311932962.html
20

21. Seed coating
Dry in shade
for 30 mins
Mix with rice kanji
to make slurry
Use within
24 hrs
Biofertilizer
Transplant
Dip roots for
5-10 mins
Mix in water
@1%
Biofertilizer
Biofertilizer Broadcast in main field
just before transplanting
Mixed with 20 kg of
dried and powdered FYM
Singh and Kumar, 2015
Precautions : –Bacterial inoculants should not be mixed with insecticide, fungicide, herbicide
and fertilizers.
21

22. Crops Micro-organism Method Quantity
Plantation Crops
Tobacco
Azotobacter Seedling treatment 500ml/acre
Tea, Coffee Azotobacter Soil treatment 400ml/acre
Rubber, Coconuts Azotobacter Soil treatment 2-3 ml/plant
Agro-Forestry/Fruit Plants, spice crops,
flowers, nuts and seeds purpose crops
Azotobacter Soil treatment 2-3 ml/plant at
nursery
Leguminous plants/ trees Rhizobium Soil treatment 1-2 ml/plant
TNAU Agritech Portal-2008
22

23. 23

24. Case Study 1: Effect of bio-fertilizers on nutrient status and fruit
quality of Himsagar mango grown in new alluvial zones of West Bengal
• Design: RBD with 3 replications.
• Variety: Himsagar
• T1 (Azotobacter + VAM),
• T2 (Azospirillum + VAM),
• T3 (Azotobacter + Azospirillum + VAM),
• T4 (Azotobacter + PSM-Bacillus megatherium),
• T5 (Azospirillum + PSM),
• T6 (Azotobacter + Azospirillum + PSM),
• T7 (Azotobacter + Azospirillum +AM+ PSM),
• T8 (1000g : 500g : 1000g N: P : K /plant/year - RDF),
• T9 (Control).
• The biofertilizer @ 200 g/plant/year along with 2 kg FYM were applied separately
around the tree in the month of July Dutta and Kundu (2012) 24

25. Table 1: Effect of bio-fertilizers on physico-chemical qualities and shelf life mango cv. Himsagar
Treatme
nts
Fruit
Wt.(g)
Fruit
length
(cm)
Diameter
(cm)
Yield
(Kg/pl
ant)
TSS
(˚Brix)
Total
Sugar
(%)
Acidity
(%)
β-carotene
(µg /100g)
Shelf
life
*(Days)
T1 204.72 8.00 7.90 34.71 17.80 13.11 0.28 6027 6
T2 207.11 8.11 7.62 34.11 17.80 13.12 0.29 6144 6
T3 209.72 8.17 8.11 34.97 18.40 13.47 0.31 6192 6
T4 207.11 8.00 7.67 33.72 18.60 13.72 0.29 6315 6
T5 206.17 8.11 7.91 33.92 18.80 13.69 0.28 6332 5
T6 209.92 8.14 7.97 35.72 18.80 13.91 0.25 6411 6
T7 214.14 8.92 8.11 36.41 19.20 14.71 0.22 6952 8
T8 212.11 8.42 8.14 33.71 16.00 13.90 0.32 5001 4
T9 200.00 7.67 7.11 32.00 16.20 13.70 0.35 5120 4
SEm± 0.11 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.003 0.34 0.01
CD
(0.05)
0.31 0.31 0.17 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.01 0.92 0.03
T7 (Azotobacter + Azospirillum +AM+ PSM)
Note: * at ambient room temperature Dutta and Kundu (2012) 25

26. Case Study 2: Studies on the Integrated Nutrient Management Strategies for
Higher Productivity in Mango cv. Alphonso
Table 2: Fruit yield and yield attributing characters as influenced by integrated nutrient management in
mango cv. Alphonso
T1 T2 T3 T4 S.Em± CD
Fruit Yield (Kg/tree) 29.35 34.69 40.04 33.03 0.656 1.86
Avg.Fruit Yield (No./tree) 157.90 174.85 193.60 171.90 3.055 8.64
Fruit weight, fruit length and circumference were non-significant
Pooled data 2001-02 and 2002-03 Patil and Co-workers (2005)
Design: RBD
Replications: 10(ten farmer's field in Dharwad district under rainfed conditions)
Ten trees/ treatment (10 years old trees)
T1: Control (farmers practice),
T2:75% RDF+25kg FYM,
T3:75% RDF +25 kg FYM +5 kg vermicompost
T4:50%RDF+ Azospirillum brasilense (100g/tree)+'P' solubalizer- Pseudomonas striata (100
g/tree)+5kg vermicompost.
RDF= 750-200-700 g NPK /tree
The treatments were imposed during June-July.
26

27. Case Study 3: Influence of bio-fertilizer on guava (Psidium guajava L.)
Cultivation in Gangetic alluvial plain of West Bengal, India
• Design: RBD
• Treatments: 10 with 3 replications
• Plants per treatment: 2
• Variety: L-49
• N:P:K :: 260:320:260 g/plant/year in two splits (January and August).
• Biofertilizers @ 150 g were mixed with 5 kg FYM to apply around the trunk of a
single tree in two splits (January and August) per year.
Das and Co-workers (2017)
27

28. Table 3a: Effect of different bio-fertilizers on fruit retention and yield of
guava cv. L-49 (Pooled data of 2013-14, 2014-15)
Treatments Fruit retention (%) Yield (Kg/plant) Yield (t/ha)
Azotobacter chroococcum 51.00 36.15 10.04
Azospirillum brasilense 52.10 36.72 10.20
Bacillus megatherium 50.12 37.00 10.28
AMF (Glomus mosseae) 53.14 37.35 9.54
A. chroococcum + B. megatherium 54.15 37.14 10.32
A. chroococcum + AMF 56.00 38.12 10.59
Azospirillum brasilense + B. megatherium 56.10 40.11 11.15
Azospirillum brasilense+ AMF 56.30 41.37 11.50
N:P:K (260:320:260g/plant/year) 51.20 32.40 9.00
Control 45.20 25.20 7.00
SEm± 0.678 1.385 0.548
CD(p=0.05) 2.015 4.114 1.64
Das and Co-workers (2017)
28

29. Table 3b: Effect of different bio-fertilizers on bio-chemical composition of
guava fruit cv. L-49 (Pooled data of 2013-14, 2014-15)
Treatments TSS (˚ Brix) Ascorbic acid (mg /100 g pulp)
Azotobacter chroococcum 9.90 125.25
Azospirillum brasilense 9.80 130.12
Bacillus megatherium 10.0 128.41
AMF (Glomus mosseae) 9.70 128.00
A. chroococcum + B. megatherium 10.1 137.44
A. chroococcum + AMF 10.0 139.44
Azospirillum brasilense + B. megatherium 10.1 141.72
Azospirillum brasilense + AMF 10.3 153.44
N:P:K (260:320:260g/plant/year) 9.10 114.72
Control 9.00 110.42
SEm± 1.532 0.313
CD(p=0.05) NS 0.93
Das and Co-workers (2017)
29

30. Case Study 4: Influence of fertigation and consortium of biofertilizer on
photosynthesis, chlorophyll content, yield parameters and yield of Banana
Cv. Robusta (AAA)
• Site: Indian Institute of Horticultural Research; Bangalore
• Design: RBD with 3 replications
• Spacing: 1.5 x 1.5 m (4444 plants ha-1)
• After fifteen days, the consortium of biofertilizers having Azospirillum, phosphate
solubilizing bacteria and AM fungi in equal proportion was incorporated.
Senthilkumar and Co-workers (2014)
30

31. Table 4: Effect of fertigation and consortium of biofertilizers on yield parameters and yield in Banana cv
Robusta (AAA).
Treatments
(RDFTF: RDF through fertigation,
CBF: consortium of biofertilizer)
Leaves at
maturity
Avg.
fruit
length
(cm)
Avg. fruit
circumfer
ence (cm)
Avg. fruit
weight
(g)
Fruits/
bunch
Avg.
bunch
weight
(kg)
Yield
(t/ha)
T1:FYM+ 300 g CBF 7.00 18.00 11.21 195.16 62.00 12.10 53.77
T2:100 %RDFTF+100 g CBF 8.95 22.60 13.36 249.06 98.69 24.58 109.23
T3:100%RDFTF+ 200 g CBF 8.95 24.25 13.75 250.89 97.54 24.93 110.92
T4:100%RDFTF+ 300 g CBF 9.27 24.75 14.67 260.84 97.54 25.93 115.23
T5:75%RDFTF+100 g CBF 8.09 22.52 13.64 249.00 95.92 23.87 106.08
T6:75%RDFTF+ 200 g CBF 8.65 23.02 14.44 249.90 93.36 24.25 107.77
T7:75%RDFTF+ 300 g CBF 8.83 23.21 14.50 257.75 94.63 24.86 111.89
T8:50%RDFTF+ 100 g CBF 8.60 20.30 12.13 222.12 90.04 20.72 92.07
T9:50%RDFTF+ 200 g CBF 8.96 20.88 12.40 227.27 91.40 21.15 93.99
T10:50%RDFTF+ 300 g CBF 9.50 21.40 12.28 230.13 91.82 21.45 94.54
T11:100%RDF (Fertigation) 7.07 21.57 13.17 246.00 93.60 23.00 101.06
T12:100% RDF(Soil
application)
7.00 19.10 11.78 230.64 78.90 17.50 77.77
SEm± 0.40 1.06 0.64 11.57 4.28 1.06 4.72
CD(0.05) 1.17 3.10 1.87 33.94 12.56 3.10 13.85
Senthilkumar and Co-workers (2014) 31

32. Case Study 5: Integrated nutrient management (INM) on growth, yield and
quality of papaya (Carica papaya L.) cv. CO-7
• Design: RBD (3 Replications with 2 plants as units)
• RDF: 250:250:500g NPK per plant/ year
• FYM: 20kg/ plant at the time of pit preparation.
• Biofertilizers: Thoroughly mixed with FYM @ 20g per pit prior to transplanting as
per treatment.
Srivastava and Co-workers (2014)
32

33. Table 5a: Effect of organic manures, fertilizers and bio-fertilizers on papaya fruits and yield (2005-06)
Treatments Fruit weight
(kg)
Fruits per
plant
Yield
(kg/plant)
Yield
(t/ha)
C:B
T1 FYM + 100% NPK)- Control 0.837 44.33 37.10 92.750 1:3.57
T2 (FYM + 50%NPK+ AZT) 0.793 37.33 29.60 74.000 1:3.28
T3 (FYM + 50%NPK+ Azospirillum) 0.757 35.16 26.63 66.575 1:2.85
T4 (FYM + 50%NPK+ AZT+ PSB) 0.940 47.83 44.20 110.500 1:5.29
T5 (FYM + 50%NPK+ Azospirillum + PSB) 0.928 47.50 44.08 110.200 1:5.27
T6 (FYM + 25%NPK+ AZT) 0.698 29.83 20.86 52.100 1:2.36
T7 (FYM + 25%NPK+ Azospirillum) 0.685 28.50 19.47 48.675 1:2.14
T8 (FYM + 25%NPK+ AZT+ PSB) 0.740 33.66 24.95 62.375 1:2.95
T9 (FYM + 25%NPK+ Azospirillum + PSB) 0.733 32.83 24.11 60.275 1:2.81
T10 (FYM + 100%NPK+ AZT+ PSB) 0.952 48.50 46.18 115.425 1:4.53
T11 (FYM + 100%NPK+Azospirillum+PSB) 0.946 48.00 45.40 113.50 1:4.43
S.E. ± 0.025 1.41 1.71 *
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.076 4.16 5.06 *
*: figures were not provided by author.
On the basis of cost: benefit ratio T4 treatment was found best, closely followed by T5
AZT: Azotobacter, PSB: Phosphate solubilizing bacteria
Srivastava and Co-workers (2014)
33

34. Table 5b: Effect of organic manures, fertilizers and bio-fertilizers on quality of papaya fruits (2005-06)
Treatments Self-life
(days)
TSS (%) Total
sugars (%)
Acidity
(%)
Ascorbic acid
(mg/100g
pulp)
T1 FYM + 100% NPK)- Control 6.00 15.20 13.47 0.152 60.81
T2 (FYM + 50%NPK+ AZT) 6.50 14.50 11.35 0.157 59.67
T3 (FYM + 50%NPK+ Azospirillum) 6.83 14.67 11.24 0.156 60.00
T4 (FYM + 50%NPK+ AZT+ PSB) 7.50 16.71 15.53 0.142 63.29
T5 (FYM + 50%NPK+ Azospirillum + PSB) 7.50 16.60 15.35 0.143 63.14
T6 (FYM + 25%NPK+ AZT) 5.66 12.90 10.32 0.171 51.60
T7 (FYM + 25%NPK+ Azospirillum) 5.33 12.83 10.17 0.170 51.31
T8 (FYM + 25%NPK+ AZT+ PSB) 5.50 13.33 10.44 0.166 57.42
T9 (FYM + 25%NPK+ Azospirillum + PSB) 5.33 12.95 10.66 0.166 57.02
T10 (FYM + 100%NPK+ AZT+ PSB) 8.00 16.80 15.84 0.139 63.73
T11 (FYM + 100%NPK+Azospirillum+PSB) 7.50 16.73 15.73 0.141 63.48
S.E. ± 0.38 0.17 0.17 0.0010 0.39
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.12 0.51 0.50 0.0029 1.16
AZT: Azotobacter, PSB: Phosphate solubilizing bacteria
Srivastava and Co-workers (2014)
34

35. Case Study 6: Influence of organic, inorganic and bio fertilizers on flowering, yield
and yield attributes of cucumber (cv. Hassan Local) in open field condition
• Design: RCBD with 3 replications
• Spacing: 150 x 90 cm (plot size was 3.5 x 2.0 m)
• RDF: NPK (60:50:80 kg/ha) + 25 t/ha FYM, vermicompost (1.5 t/ha)
• Biofertilizers: 5kg/ha of each by soil application before sowing the seeds
• T1 – 100% RDF (60:50:80 kg NPK/ha) + 100%FYM (25 t/ha)
• T2 – 75% RDF + 75% FYM + Azotobacter + Phosphobacteria + Trichoderma
• T3 – 50% RDF + 50% FYM + Azotobacter + Phosphobacteria + Trichoderma
• T4 – 75% RDF + VC (1.5t/ha) + Azotobacter + Phosphobacteria + Trichoderma
• T5 – 50% RDF + VC (1.5t/ha) + Azotobacter + Phosphobacteria + Trichoderma
• T6 – 75% RDF + 50% FYM + VC (1.5 t/ha) + Azotobacter + Phosphobacteria + Trichoderma
• T7 – 50% RDF + 50% FYM + VC (1.5 t/ha) + Azotobacter + Phosphobacteria + Trichoderma
• T8 – 75% RDF + 50% FYM + Azotobacter
• T9 – 50% RDF + 50% FYM + Azotobacter
• T10 – 75% RDF + 50% FYM + Phosphobacteria
• T11 – 50% RDF + 50% FYM + Phosphobacteria
• T12 – 100% FYM + Azotobacter + Phosphobacteria + Trichoderma
Anjanappa and Co-workers (2012) 35

36. Table 6: Effect of integrated nutrient management on sex ratio and yield in cucumber grown under open condition.
Treatments
(AZT: Azotobacter , PSB: Phosphobacteria ,
TDP: Trichoderma , RDF: Recommended dose
of fertilizer)
Sex ratio (M:F) Number of
fruits/vine
Fruit weight (g) Fruit yield (t/ha)
Summe
r, 2005
Rabi,
2006
Summer,
2005
Rabi,
2006
Summer,
2005
Rabi,
2006
Summe
r, 2005
Rabi,
2006
T1 – 100% RDF + 100%FYM 5.90 5.37 8.11 8.58 279.27 289.15 15.52 15.75
T2 – 75% RDF + 75% FYM + AZT + PSB+TDP 4.60 4.88 10.25 10.30 309.01 324.94 17.60 18.22
T3 – 50% RDF + 50% FYM + AZT + PSB+TDP 5.33 5.09 7.66 7.90 243.69 244.72 14.36 14.45
T4 – 75% RDF + VC (1.5t/ha) + AZT + PSB+TDP 5.94 5.39 8.70 9.03 298.14 310.83 15.59 15.85
T5 – 50% RDF + VC (1.5t/ha) + AZT + PSB+TDP 5.53 5.15 7.66 8.26 246.94 268.25 14.45 14.45
T6 – 75% RDF + 50% FYM + VC (1.5 t/ha) +AZT
+ PSB+TDP
5.20 4.90 10.00 10.25 302.14 313.98 17.41 17.79
T7 – 50% RDF + 50% FYM + VC (1.5 t/ha) +
+AZT + PSB+TDP
5.70 5.35 8.00 8.56 286.99 266.66 15.16 15.59
T8 – 75% RDF + 50% FYM + AZT 5.63 5.34 7.83 8.50 278.35 259.50 14.81 15.42
T9 – 50% RDF + 50% FYM + AZT 5.22 4.99 6.75 7.33 240.23 203.66 14.17 14.43
T10 – 75% RDF + 50% FYM + PSB 5.59 5.29 7.73 8.33 255.65 269.49 14.81 15.04
T11 – 50% RDF + 50% FYM + PSB 6.15 5.63 6.46 7.25 238.35 195.98 14.10 14.10
T12 – 100% FYM + AZT + PSB+TDP 6.14 6.07 6.26 7.01 193.07 191.94 12.91 13.29
S.Em. ± 0.21 0.20 0.83 0.70 16.46 30.43 0.97 1.03
C.D. at 5% 0.63 0.59 2.46 2.06 48.29 89.25 2.86 3.04
Anjanappa and Co-workers (2012)
36

37. Case Study 7: Influence of Biofertilizers on the Growth, Yield and Quality of
Brinjal Crop
• Design: RBD with 4 replications (6 treatments)
• Variety: Syngenta Green-Crown
• Spacing: 90X80 cm.
• RDF for experiment : 75: 75 : 00 NPK Kg/ha
• Biofertilizers: Azotobacter chrochoccum and Bacillus polymyxa as PSB
• The treatment AZT + PSB + 50% RDF of NPK showed less shoot-root borer infestation (66.68%
), fruit borer infestation (21.81% ), little leaf infestation (75.0%) over the control.
Table 7: Brinjal growth parameters as influenced by different treatments
Treatments Plant height (cm) Root length (cm) Number of fruits
picked/plant
Total
yield/plant (g)
100% RDF 98.18 57.14 38.23 2554.70
AZT + PSB + 50%
RDF
98.64 52.60 40.31 2516.46
Results were at par with each other in respective parameters
Doifode and Nandkar (2014)
37

38. Case Study 8: Effect of Azospirillum sp. and Pseudomonas striata on the yield of black
pepper (Piper nigrum L.) in arecanut (Areca catechu L.) mixed cropping system
Table 8a: Effect of Azospirillum on the yield of Black pepper in areca nut mixed cropping system (Mean
values of 2005-06 to 2009-2010)
Variety: Panniyur 1 Mean yield (kg/vine) Yield q/ha C:B ratio
Treatments Fresh Dry B. Pepper A. nut
T1 - Inorganic 100% N* + Azospirillum
brasilence. (50 g) + 10 kg FYM,
6.83 2.01 11.06 15.29 1:3.29
T2 Inorganic 75% N* + Azospirillum
brasilence. (50 g) + 10 kg FYM,
6.57 1.93 10.62 14.58 1:3.15
T3-Inorganic 50% N* + Azospirillum
brasilence. (50 g) + 10 kg FYM,
6.33 1.86 8.58 11.99 1:2.58
T4- Inorganic 25% N * +Azospirillum
brasilence. (50 g) + 10 kg FYM,
6.25 1.84 10.12 13.75 1:3.01
T5-FYM 10 kg 5.67 1.67 9.19 12.65 1:2.81
T6 - RDF alone. 6.12 1.80 9.90 13.86 1:3.03
S.E. + 0.24 0.12
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.72 0.29
Experimental site: Farmer’s field at Korlakatta village at Sirsi (Karnataka)
Design: RBD with 4 replications (6 vines/replication)
(* = along with application of recommended P and K.) Source: Naik and Co-workers (2013)
38

39. Table 8b: Effect of P solubilizer on the yield of black pepper in arecanut mixed cropping system
(Mean values of 2005-06 to 2009-2010)
Variety: Panniyur 1 Mean yield(kg/vine) Yield q/ha C:B ratio
Treatments Fresh Dry B. Pepper A. nut
T1-Inorganic 100% P* + 10 kg FYM+
Pseudomonas striata (50 g)
6.81 1.94 10.67 15.95 1:3.30
T2- Inorganic 75% P* + 10 kg FYM
+Pseudomonas striata (50 g)
6.43 1.83 10.07 15.18 1:3.14
T3-Inorganic 50% P* + 10 kg FYM+
Pseudomonas striata (50 g)
6.36 1.81 9.96 13.81 1:2.97
T4-Inorganic 25% * + 10 kg FYM+
Pseudomonas striata (50 g)
6.00 1.73 9.52 11.55 1:2.66
T5-FYM 10 kg 5.84 1.66 9.13 12.10 1:2.72
T6- RDF alone 6.25 1.78 9.79 13.48 1:3.17
S.E. + 0.22 0.11
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.66 0.30
where,* = along with application of recommended N and K. Naik and Co-workers (2013)
39

40. Case Study 9: Effect of organic source of nutrients and biofertilizers on
growth, yield and quality of ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.)
• Design: RBD with 5 replications
• Variety: Gorbathan Genotype (GCP-5) on raised bed system
• T1 = Farm Yard Manure (FYM) @ 15 tonnes/ha,
• T2 = FYM @ 30 tonnes/ha,
• T3 = FYM @ 15 tonnes/ha + Azospirillium @5 kg/ha + PSB @ 5 kg/ha,
• T4 = Vermicompost @ 5 tonnes/ha + Azospirillium @5 kg/ha + PSB @ 5 kg/ha,
• T5 = Green leaf manure @ 12 tonnes/ha +Rock Phosphate @ 200 kg/ha + Azospirillium @5 kg/ha +
wood ash @ 1 ton/ha + PSB @ 5 kg/ha,
• T6 = N: P2O5 : K2O @ 80:80:120 kg/ha + FYM @ 15tonnes/ha.
• Azospirillium and PSB were inoculated as seed treatment (2.5g/kg rhizome).
• For inorganic treatment full dose of P2O5 and 1/3 dose of N was applied as basal, rest 2/3rd N and
K2O were applied in two equal splits at 45 and 90 days after planting.
Datta and Co-workers (2018)
40

41. Table 9: Effect of organic source of nutrients and biofertilizers on growth, yield and quality of ginger
(Pooled data of 2009-10 and 20010-11)
Treatments Plant
height (cm)
Yield (t/ha) Dry
recovery(%)
Oleoresin
content (%)
Fresh Dry
T1 = FYM @ 15 t/ha 56.50 13.09 2.94 22.43 4.37
T2 = FYM @ 30 t/ha 63.80 16.60 3.56 21.45 4.28
T3 = FYM @ 15 t/ha + Azospirillium
@5 kg/ha + PSB @ 5 kg/ha
62.60 16.69 3.48 22.18 4.30
T4 = Vermicompost @ 5 t/ha +
Azospirillium @5 kg/ha + PSB @ 5
kg/ha
66.90 18.59 4.06 21.82 4.31
T5 = Green leaf manure @ 12 t/ha
+Rock Phosphate @ 200 kg/ha +
Azospirillium @5 kg/ha + wood ash
@ 1 t/ha + PSB @ 5 kg/ha
72.45 20.68 4.52 21.84 4.33
T6 = N: P2O5 : K2O @ 80:80:120
kg/ha + FYM @ 15/ha
71.10 16.71 3.43 20.55 4.16
SEm± 1.50 0.24 0.06 0.13 0.05
CD (P=0.05) 4.30 0.70 0.19 0.38 0.15
Datta and Co-workers (2018)
41

42. Case Study 10: Biofertilizers and inorganic fertilizers on growth and yield of
turmeric grown as intercrop in arecanut plantation
• Design: RBD with 3 replications
• Intercropped in six year old arecanut (cv. Mohitnagar) plantation
• Soil type: Sandy clay loam
• Raised beds: 1.5 m x 1.5 m x 0.15m leaving 75.0 cm radius from the base of each
palm.
• AMF @ 65 kg/ha soil application.
• Azospirillum, Azotobacter and PSB: Through seed treatment @ 5 g/kg seed
rhizome.
• Compost and ash @ 10/ha and 2 t/ha, respectively in all treatment combinations
except NPK (100%).
• RDF: 150:60:210 kg/ha of NPK
Roy and Hore (2009)
42

43. Table 10a: Effect of graded doses of fertilizers and biofertilizers on yield of turmeric
Treatments No. of leaves/clump Clump Weight (g) / plant Yield (t/ha)*
NPK (100%) + Azot. + AMF 24.56 301.62 27.48
NPK (100%) + Azot.+PSB 22.74 285.10 26.33
NPK (100%) + Azos. + AMF 25.12 316.45 29.37
NPK (100%) + Azos. +PSB 23.45 269.50 25.19
NPK (75%) + Azot. + AMF 24.72 338.40 31.53
NPK (75%) + Azot. +PSB 23.66 312.64 28.81
NPK (75%) + Azos. + AMF 26.16 372.58 34.44
NPK (75%) + Azos. +PSB 22.28 302.12 27.85
NPK (50%) + Azot. + AMF 23.65 290.75 26.61
NPK (50%) + Azot. +PSB 21.05 238.36 22.48
NPK (50%) + Azos. + AMF 22.75 263.56 24.53
NPK (50%) + Azos. +PSB 22.14 251.62 23.25
NPK (100%) 21.35 272.84 24.47
S.Em. (±) 0.614 2.382 0.633
CD (P = 0.05) 1.738 6.775 1.801
*=yield per plot, considering the 60 % area occupied by intercrop Roy and Hore (2009) 43

44. Table 10b: Effect of graded doses of fertilizers and biofertilizers on primary and secondary fingers per
plant
Treatments Primary fingers / plant Secondary fingers / plant
Number Weight (g) Length
(cm)
Breadth
(cm)
Number Weight
(g)
Length
(cm)
Breadth
(cm)
NPK (100%) +
Azot. + AMF
6.43 162.75 7.42 2.51 10.45 102.45 5.62 1.84
NPK (100%) +
Azot.+PSB
5.13 152.84 6.15 1.65 8.72 98.31 4.96 1.78
NPK (100%) +
Azos. + AMF
7.02 171.20 7.58 2.31 10.35 116.24 5.74 1.93
NPK (100%) +
Azos. +PSB
6.09 145.80 6.48 1.72 9.26 84.75 4.85 1.68
NPK (75%) +
Azot. + AMF
5.74 192.25 7.96 2.43 11.74 112.30 5.58 1.85
NPK (75%) +
Azot. +PSB
5.97 154.16 6.46 2.14 12.45 119.75 5.72 1.67
NPK (75%) +
Azos. + AMF
7.38 175.28 7.10 2.37 15.58 164.35 6.74 2.16
Contd….
44

45. Table 10b: Effect of graded doses of fertilizers and biofertilizers on primary and secondary fingers per
plant
Treatments Primary fingers / plant Secondary fingers / plant
Number Weight
(g)
Length
(cm)
Breadth
(cm)
Number Weight
(g)
Length
(cm)
Breadth
(cm)
NPK (75%) +
Azos. +PSB
6.35 165.17 7.24 2.30 9.58 94.70 5.32 1.64
NPK (50%) +
Azot. + AMF
5.31 105.35 5.95 1.74 14.16 152.53 6.33 2.28
NPK (50%) +
Azot. +PSB
4.82 126.33 6.15 1.95 9.21 83.25 4.75 2.65
NPK (50%) +
Azos. + AMF
5.55 145.71 6.84 2.36 8.76 77.50 5.12 1.83
NPK (50%) +
Azos. +PSB
5.20 114.02 5.93 1.82 13.62 131.42 6.14 2.03
NPK (100%) 5.91 138.46 6.54 2.28 9.63 96.25 5.23 1.85
S.Em. (±) 0.035 1.074 0.102 0.027 0.308 1.128 0.510 0.033
CD (P = 0.05) 0.100 3.055 0.292 0.078 0.876 3.208 NS 0.093
Azos.: Azospirillum, Azot.: Azotobacter, PSB: Phosphate solubilizing bacteria
Roy and Hore (2009)
Saving of 25 per cent inorganic NPK through biofertilizers is possible.
45

46. Case Study 11: Effect of inorganic and biofertilizers on chilli
• RDF= 90:60:50 kg/ha of N:P:K
• Design: Two factor RCBD (Replications=2).
• Spacing: 50 cm x 50 cm (12 seedlings/plot)
• Two cultivars : Arka Lohit and Arka Suphal
• Bio-fertilizers :Azospirillum + PSB @ 15g/3 sq.m. through water (1.5 litre) twice i.e.
30 and 60 days after transplanting.
• FYM was applied at the basis of @10t/ha.
• The inorganic fertilizers were applied in two split doses i.e. 45 and 75 DAT.
Khan and Chattopadhyay (2009)
46

47. Chilli
Table 11: Effect of inorganic and biofertilizers on chilli yield
Treatments Fruit yield/plant (g) Projected Dry yield (t/ha) Benefit cost ratio
Arka Lohit Arka Suphal Mean Arka Lohit Arka Suphal Mean Arka Lohit Arka Suphal
T1-Full NPK 178.20 235.80 207.00 5.35 7.08 6.22 1.89:1 2.82:1
T2-N75% P75% K100%+ BF 223.03 281.64 252.34 6.70 8.45 7.58 2.37:1 3.24:1
T3-N75% P50%K100% +BF 199.55 291.60 245.58 5.98 8.75 7.37 2.03:1 3.43:1
T4-N75% P25%K100%+ BF 162.75 225.95 194.35 4.88 6.78 5.83 1.47:1 2.43:1
T5-N50% P75%K100%+ BF 145.50 196.01 170.76 4.38 5.88 5.13 1.21:1 1.96:1
T6-N50% P50%K100%+ BF 146.94 179.11 163.03 4.40 5.38 4.89 1.23:1 1.72:1
T7-N50% P25%K100%+ BF 133.95 158.61 146.28 4.04 4.75 4.40 1.05:1 1.40:1
T8-N25% P75%K100%+ BF 122.85 142.87 132.86 3.68 4.28 3.98 0.88:1 1.19:1
T9-N25% P50%K100%+ BF 121.67 137.50 129.59 3.64 4.13 3.89 0.86:1 1.11:1
T10-N25%P25%K100%+BF 117.50 135.83 126.67 3.52 4.08 3.80 0.80:1 1.09:1
T11- Biofertilzer 113.33 132.50 122.92 3.40 3.98 3.69 0.78:1 1.08:1
T12-Control (no fertilizer) 110.00 123.33 116.67 3.30 3.70 3.50 0.89:1 1.12:1
Mean 147.94 186.73 4.44 5.61
SEm (±) CD SEm (±) CD
Variety(V) 1.639 4.797 0.031 0.090
Treatment(T) 4.016 11.749 0.075 0.220
V X T 5.679 16.616 0.106 0.311 Khan and Chattopadhyay (2009)47

48. Case Study 12: Influence of Biofertilizer Application on Growth, Yield and
Quality Parameters of Jasmine (Jasminum auriculatum)
Table 12: Effect of Biofertilizer Application on Jasmine Yield Parameters
Treatment Days taken for
first flowering
(DAP)
Number of
flower/picking /plant at
peak flowering
Total flower yield at the
end of 50 days (g/plant)
T1 – 100% RDF 121.33 60.3 235
T2 – 75% RDF 120.83 60.0 222
T3 – 50% RDF 120.33 59.4 211
T4 – 100% RDF + Biofertilizers 116.50 62.1 264
T5 – 75% RDF + Biofertilizers 114.83 60.5 246
T6 – 50% RDF + Biofertilizers 115.00 59.5 231
S.Em.± 1.713 0.552 1.52
CD @ 5% 4.989 1.609 4.42
Plant height (cm), Number of branches, Plant canopy (cm) were non significant.
The lignite based cultures of Azospirillum, Pseudomonas striata, Pseudomonas fluorescens and
Trichoderma viridae used @ 8 kg/ha each.
FYM: 9t/ha for all treatments
RDF = NPK (60:120:120 g/plant) Jayamma and Co-workers (2014) 48

49. Case Study 13: Effect of organic manures and biofertilizers on growth,
flowering and flower yield of rose (Rosa X hybrida L.) cv. Gladiator
• Design: RBD with three replications.
• Spacing: 1.0 x 1.5 meters.
• T1 :Control
• T2 :Vermicompost @ 2 kg / plant
• T3 :Farm yard manure @ 4 kg / plant
• T4 :Neem cake @ 0.8 kg / plant
• T5 :Castor cake @ 0.8 kg / plant
• T6 :Vermicompost @ 2 kg + Azotobacter @ 1 ml + PSM @ 1 ml + KSB @ 1 ml / plant
• T7 :Farm yard manure @ 4 kg + Azotobacter @ 1 ml + PSM @ 1 ml + KSB @ 1 ml / plant
• T8 :Neem cake @ 0.8 kg + Azotobacter @ 1 ml + PSM @ 1 ml + KSB @ 1 ml / plant
• T9 :Castor cake @ 0.8 kg + Azotobacter @ 1 ml + PSM @ 1 ml + KSB @ 1 ml / plant
Patel and Co-workers (2017)
49

50. Table 13: Effect of organic manures and biofertilizers on growth and yield parameters of rose
Treatment Days to first
flower
Stalk length
(cm)
Stalk
diameter
(cm)
No. of
flowers per
plant
No. of flowers
per ha. (lac)
CBR
T1 45.01 14.22 0.18 50.72 3.38 1:2.48
T2 42.91 18.43 0.20 58.67 3.91 1:2.40
T3 43.80 17.02 0.20 56.72 3.78 1:2.58
T4 40.77 20.12 0.24 60.82 4.05 1:2.54
T5 40.31 21.64 0.25 61.32 4.09 1:2.53
T6 38.97 25.47 0.26 62.08 4.14 1:2.51
T7 40.10 21.82 0.22 60.28 4.02 1:2.70
T8 38.33 28.50 0.28 62.98 4.20 1:2.61
T9 37.95 30.03 0.30 64.83 4.32 1:2.66
S. Em+ 1.27 0.85 0.01 2.10 0.15
C.D. at 5% 3.81 2.54 0.03 6.29 0.44
T9 :Castor cake @ 0.8 kg + Azotobacter @ 1 ml + PSM @ 1 ml + KSB @ 1 ml / plant
T7 :Farm yard manure @ 4 kg + Azotobacter @ 1 ml + PSM @ 1 ml + KSB @ 1 ml / plant
Patel and Co-workers (2017)
50

51. Case Study 14: Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on Growth,
Flowering and Yield of African Marigold (Tagetes erecta L.)
• Design: FRBD with 3 replications
• Four levels of FYM and fertilizers:
M1= 100% RDF,
M2= FYM @ 20 t ha-1,
M3= 75% RDF and FYM @ 20 t/ha
M4)= 50% RDF and FYM @ 20 t/ha
• Four biofertilizers:
B0= Control,
B1= Azotobacter,
B2= PSB( phosphate solubilizing bacteria),
B3= Azotobacter + PSB inoculation
• RDF (Recommended dose of fertilizer): 120- 60- 60 kg/ha NPK
• Biofertilizer application: Root dipping for 30 mins.
• Spacing: 60 x 45 cm.
Mamta and Co-workers (2017)
51

52. Table 14: Effect of FYM, fertilizers and biofertilizers on growth and Yield attributes in African marigold
Treatments Plant height(cm) No. of primary
branches
Weight of
flower (g)
Number of
flowers/plant
Yield of
flowers/ha(q)
F1B0 49.64 10.42 6.36 49.64 144.16
F1B1 58.10 12.41 7.57 59.10 172.36
F1B2 53.94 11.54 7.04 54.94 159.01
F1B3 62.96 13.22 8.07 62.96 183.15
F2B0 35.24 7.35 4.41 34.57 100.42
F2B1 53.80 11.30 6.89 53.80 156.26
F2B2 49.53 10.40 6.34 49.53 143.67
F2B3 57.76 12.13 7.40 57.76 168.11
F3B0 59.56 12.30 7.50 58.56 171.72
F3B1 66.54 13.97 8.52 66.54 195.37
F3B2 63.49 13.33 8.13 63.49 186.57
F3B3 68.74 14.44 8.81 68.74 201.11
F4B0 55.32 11.41 6.96 54.32 159.94
F4B1 63.49 13.33 8.13 63.49 186.34
F4B2 59.44 12.48 7.61 59.44 174.29
F4B3 67.23 14.12 8.61 67.23 197.74
SEm+ 1.81 0.35 0.23 1.76 5.16
CD at 5% 5.23 1.02 0.66 5.10 14.90
Mamta and Co-workers (2017)
52

53. • Bio-fertilizers are effective in improving soil nutrient status which results in to
increase in crop yield and quality.
• Biofertilizers provides protection to crop against biotic and abiotic stress.
• Reduction in inorganic recommended dose of fertilizers up to 25-50% is possible
with application of biofertilizers.
• Increase in yield up to 18-50% is possible over convential nutrient supply.
• Combine application of different biofertilizers i.e. in the form of microbial
consortium is more cost effective and beneficial in crop production.
• As it is a part of integrated nutrient management (INM) as well as a part of Organic
farming, it is environmentally safe and sustainable.
• Recommended dose of fertilizers should be redefined with incorporation of
biofertilizers to achieve profitable and sustainable crop yield and returns.
• More efficient strains of biofertilizers should be discovered as there is huge
number of diversity on our planet.
• Use of microbial consortium should be promoted in farming community.
• Region and soil specific microbial consortium should be developed, especially for
Konkan region.
53

54. References
Ahmad Ali Khan, Ghulam Jilani , Mohammad Saleem Akhtar , Syed Muhammad Saqlan, Naqvi and Mohammad Rasheed, J.
(2009) , Phosphorus Solubilizing Bacteria: Occurrence, Mechanisms and their Role in Crop Production, Agric. Biol. Sci.
1(1):48-58.
Amrish Srivastava, J.K. Singh And H.K. Singh (2014), Integrated nutrient management (INM) on growth, yield and quality of papaya
(Carica papaya L.) cv. CO-7, Asian J. Hort., 9(2) : 390-395.
Anonymous (2019), Agriculture in India- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_India
Anonymous (2019b), Area and Production of Horticulture Crops : All India 2018-19 (Third Advance Estimates), Press Information
Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare.
D.R. Patil , H.B. Patil , J.M. Prashanth, S.N. Patil (2005), Studies on the Integrated Nutrient Management Strategies for Higher
Productivity in Mango cv. Alphonso, Karnataka J.Agric.Sci.,18 (3):861-864
Doifode VD and Nandkar PB (2014) Influence of Biofertilizers on the Growth, Yield and Quality of Brinjal Crop, Int. J. of Life
Sciences, Special Issue A2: 17-20.
Gaur V (2010). Biofertilizer– Necessity for Sustainability. J. Adv. Dev., 1: 7–8.
J. K. Vessey(2003), Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers, Plant and Soil, 255 (2): 571–586.
K Mohan Kumar, M Hanumanthappa, S Marimuthu and C Meenambigai (2018), A review on enhancing the fertilizers use efficiency
to minimize environmental impacts , International Journal of Chemical Studies, 6(3): 2167-2174.
K. Mallikarjuna Rao, Pradeep Kumar Singh, Hamar Babiang K Ryingkhun and Bilin Maying (2014) , Use of Bio-fertilizers in Vegetable
Production, Indian Horticulture Journal; 4(1): 73-76, ISSN: 2249-6823.
Kaushik Das, Sayan Sau, Pallab Datta, Dipanjana Sengupta (2017), Influence of Bio-fertilizer on Guava (Psidium guajava L.)
cultivation in gangetic alluvial plain of West Bengal, India , Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences, 5(4).
M. Anjanappa, J. Venkatesh And B. Suresh Kumara (2012), Influence of organic, inorganic and bio fertilizers on flowering, yield
and yield attributes of cucumber (cv. Hassan Local) in open field condition, Karnataka J. Agric. Sci.,25 (4) : ( 493-497).
M. Senthilkumar, S. Ganesh, K. Srinivas and P. Panneerselvam (2014), Influence of fertigation and consortium of biofertilizer
onphotosynthesis, chlorophyll content, yield parameters and yield of Banana Cv. Robusta (AAA), Plant Archives , 14 (1):
387-391.
Mahendra Singh and Santosh Kumar (2015), Biofertilizers application in agriculture, Rashtriya Krishi , 10 (1).
54

55. Mamta Kumawat, S.K. Khandelwal, M.R. Choudhary, P.K. Kumawat, G. Sharma and Paru Panwar (2017), Effect of integrated
nutrient management on growth, flowering and yield of african marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) , Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci
6(8): 60-65.
N. Jayamma, Nagaraj M. Naik, and K. S. Jagadeesh (2014), Influence of Biofertilizer Application on Growth, Yield and Quality
Parameters of Jasmine (Jasminum auriculatum), International Conference on Food, Biological and Medical Sciences (FBMS-
2014) Jan. 28-29, 2014 Bangkok (Thailand).
Naik, H. Nagesh, Lokesh, M.S., Patil, S.V. and Pushpa, P. (2013). Effect of Azospirillum sp. and Pseudomonas striata on the yield of
black pepper (Piper nigrum L.) in arecanut (Areca catechu L.) mixed cropping system, Asian J. Hort., 8(1) : 354-357.
Oluwambe T.M., Kofoworola A.(2016), AComparison of single culture and the consortium of growth-promoting rhizobacteria from
three tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) varieties. Adv Plants Agric Res., 5(1):448‒455.
P. Dutta and S. Kundu (2012), Effect of bio-fertilizers on nutrient status and fruit quality of Himsagar mango grown in new alluvial
zones of West Bengal, Journal of Crop and Weed 8(1): 72-74
S. Khan and N. Chattopadhyay (2009) Effect of inorganic and biofertilizers on chilli, Journal of Crop and Weed, 5(1):191-196.
S. M. Rajesh Naik, M. Lakshmi Naga Nandini, Md. Aayesha Jameel, K. T. Venkataraman and L. Mukundalakshmi(2018), Role of
Arbuscular Mycorrhiza in Fruit Crops Production, Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 6 (5): 1126-1133.
S.S. Roy and J.K. Hore (2009), Biofertilizers and inorganic fertilizers on growth and yield of turmeric grown as intercrop in arecanut
plantation, Journal of Plantation Crops, 37 (1).
Sneha S. Nair and G.P. Brahmaprakash, Effect of effervescent biofertilizer consortial tablets on growth of tomato (Lycopersicon
esculentum Mill.), Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci , 6(9): 615-623 .
Suchand Datta, Jagdish Chandra Jana, Pranali Tulshidas Bhaisare, Adarsh Thapa and Siddikul Islam (2018), Effect of organic source
of nutrients and biofertilizers on growth, yield and quality of ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.), Journal of Pharmacognosy
and Phytochemistry ; 7(6): 2311-2314.
TNAU Agritech portal-2008: http://agritech.tnau.ac.in/ta/org_farm/orgfarm_biofertilizertechnology.html
V. C. Baligar , N. K. Fageria & Z. L. He (2001) Nutrient use efficiency in plants, Communications in soil science and plant analysis,
32:7-8, 921-950.
V.S. Patel, V.R. Malam, K.H. Nurbhanej, A.N. Vihol and J.R. Chavada (2017), Effect of organic manures and biofertilizers on growth,
flowering and flower yield of rose (Rosa× hybrida L.) cv. Gladiator, International Journal of Chemical Studies , 5(5): 1924-
1927.
55

56. 56