Effect of Potassium Solubilizing Biofertilizers Application Compared to Potassium Sulfate on Growth and Some Physiological Traits of Radish (Raphanus sativus L.) under Drought Stress

علوم باغبانی

Article 8, Volume 34, Issue 4 - Serial Number 48, June 2021, Pages 633-643   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jhorts4.v34i4.84228

Authors

َAysan Samadi¹; Akbar Hassani^{* 2}; Majid Gholamhoseini³

¹M.Sc. Graduate of Soil Science, Department Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zanjan, Iran

²Assistant Professor of Soil Science, Department Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zanjan, Iran

³Assistant Professor Department of Oil Seeds, Seedand Plant Improvement Institute. Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Plant growth promoting bacteria are beneficial microorganisms that produce plant resistance to a variety of biological and non-biological stresses, including drought, extreme temperatures, salinity, toxic metals, etc, and increase plant productivity and yield. The use of these microorganisms as biological agents in increasing soil fertility and improving agricultural productivity has been studied by many researchers, so a proper understanding of their effect on drought resistance can be effective in water resources management. Useful in field and reducing environmental effects of using chemical fertilizers. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of some bio-fertilizers on growth and some physiological and biochemical characteristics of red radish and in comparison with potassium sulfate application under drought stress.
Material and Methods: In other to investigate the effect of application of bio-fertilizers containing potassium-soluble bacteria (Pseudomonas koreensis and Pseudomonas vancouverensis), phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria (Pseudomonas putida) and nitrogen-fixing bacteria (Pantoea agglomerans) on plant growth and function, this experiment was done with 10 treatments and three replications in the form of completely randomized design in greenhouse. Finally the statistical population consisted of 30 pots of 10 treatments and three replications for red radish. Drought stress was applied in such a way that the apparent symptoms of stress were seen in the plants and the amount of water used was the same for all plants. The experiment was carried out in greenhouses and nylon pots with a capacity of 6.5 kg were used. The soil was prepared using a calcareous soil of Zanjan University research field. Its absorption was less than critical. Organic matter content was 0.4% and lime equivalent was 14.1% pH of soil 7.57 and EC of abstract soil paste was 2.21. Pots were treated with municipal water for 25 days after planting. EC values of water was 400 µS / cm that irrigated the plants every three days. The desired bio-fertilizers were added to the pots with irrigation water. After 25 days, 15 pots of treatments 4 to 6 were subjected to drought stress. 40 days after planting before drying of the plants, weight, moisture content of plant tissue, leaf proline content, total free amino acid, and total soluble sugars in leaf extract were measured. Analysis of variance was performed using SAS software and LSD test at the 5% level was used to compare the means.
Results and Discussion: Results of analysis of variance showed that the effect of different treatments on aerial fresh weight was significant at 1% level. Fertilizer treatments under stress and non-stress conditions significantly increased aerial fresh weight. Among non-stress treatments, the highest fresh weight was obtained from treatment 2 (10.03 g / pot) and the lowest was in control treatment (6.55 g / pot). Among the drought stress treatments with application of different fertilizers used, treatment 8 (9.19 g / pot) had the highest and treatment 6 (7.04 g / pot) had the lowest fresh weight. Application of potassium sulfate fertilizer increased the fresh weight of aerial part both under stress and non-stress condition. Potassium soluble bio-fertilizer alone and in combination with other bio-fertilizers increased radish aerial fresh weight, which was not significantly different from potassium sulfate fertilizer. In radish, drought stress affected the tuber fresh weight more. The radish plant uses the water of the tuber reserve in drought stress so that the leaves are less susceptible to stress. In non-stress conditions, application of potassium sulfate fertilizer and bio-fertilizers in radish increased yield. Potassium sulfate effect was greater. In stress conditions, the effect of bio-fertilizers was more than potassium sulfate in stress condition. The effect of potassium soluble bio-fertilizer application was almost identical with the combined application of different biofertilizers. Drought stress increased the concentration of proline, amino acids and soluble sugars in leaves and tubers of radish. Increasing concentration of these compounds indicated that plants were resistant to drought. Application of potassium sulfate and bio-fertilizers decreased these concentration and the effect of bio-fertilizers was more than that of potassium sulfate. The amount of ion leakage also increased under drought stress but leakage decreased by using potassium sulfate and bio-fertilizers. Drought stress also reduced the starch concentration in leaves and tubers of radish, which is a consequence of drought stress.
Conclusion: In general, application of potassium sulfate and bio-fertilizers moderated the effects of drought stress and in some cases the effect of biofertilizers was greater. Integrated use of bio-fertilizers was not significantly different from the use of potassium soluble bio-fertilizer alone. So, the results of this study showed that the use of bio-fertilizers can be included in the plant nutrition program as a factor in reducing the negative effects of stress on plants.

Keywords

Amino acid; Ionic leak; Nitrogen solubilizer; Phosphorus solubilizer; Proline

References

1. 1-       Amin S., Ghadiri H., Chen C., and Marschner P. 2016. Salt-affected soils, reclamation, carbon dynamics, and          biochar: a review. Journal of Soils and Sediments 16(3): 939-953. 

   2-       Arora A., Sairam R.K., and Srivastava G.C. 2002. Oxidative stress and antioxidative system in plants. Current Science 1227-1238.

   3-       Bano A., and Fatima M. 2009. Salt tolerance in Zea mays (L.) following inoculation with Rhizobium and Pseudomonas. Biology and Fertility of Soils 45(4): 405-413.

   4-       Bates L., Waldren R. and Teare I. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant and Soil 39(1): 205-207.

   5-       Chen K., Kurgan L., and Rahbari M. 2007. Prediction of protein crystallization using collocation of amino acid pairs. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 355(3): 764-769.

   6-       Dardipour A., Farshadi Rad A., and Cheap M.H. 2010. The effect of Azotobacter chrococoum and Azospirillum lipoferum on soil potassium release in soybean pots (Glycine max var. Williams). Journal of Agricultural Ecology 2(4): 599-593. (In Persian with English abstract)

   7-       Demin I.N., Deryabin A.N., Sinkevich M.S., and Trunova T.I. 2008. Insertion of cyanobacterial desA gene coding for 12-acyl-lipid desaturase increases potato plant resistance to oxidative stress induced by hypothermia. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology 55(5): 639-648.

   8-       DuBois M., Gilles K.A., Hamilton J.K., Rebers P.T., and Smith F. 1956. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analytical Chemistry 28(3): 350-356.

   9-       Ehdaie B., Alloush G. A., Madore M. A., and Waines, J. G. 2006. Genotypic variation for stem reserves and mobilization in wheat. Crop Science 46(5): 2093-2103.           

   10-   Etesami H., and Beattie G.A. 2017. Plant-microbe interactions in adaptation of agricultural crops to abiotic stress conditions. Probiotics and Plant Health 163-200.

   11-   Ghorbanli M., Gafarabad M., Amirkian T., and Allahverdi Mamaghani M.B. 2013. Investigation of proline, total protein, chlorophyll, ascorbate and dehydroascorbate changes under drought stress in Akria and Mobil tomato cultivars. Iranian Journal of Plant Physiology 3(2): 651-658.

   12-   Kannenberg S.A., and Phillips R.P. 2017. Soil microbial communities’ buffer physiological responses to drought stress in three hardwood species. Oecologia 183(3): 631-641.

   13-   Keller F., and Ludlow M.M. 1993. Carbohydrates metabolism in drought– stressed leaves of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajana). Journal of Experimental Botany 44(8): 1351-1359.

   14-   Mayak S., Tirosh T., and Glick B.R. 2004. Plant growth-promoting bacteria that confer resistance to water stress in tomatoes and peppers. Plant Science 166(2): 525-530.

   15-   Naidu B.P. 1998. Separation of sugars, polyols, proline analogues, and betaines in stressed plant extracts by high performance liquid chromatography and quantification by ultra violet detection. Functional Plant Biology 25(7): 793-800.

   16-   Numan M., Bashir S., Khan Y., Mumtaz R., Shinwari Z.K., Khan A.L., and Ahmed A.H. 2018. Plant growth promoting bacteria as an alternative strategy for salt tolerance in plants: a review. Microbiological Research 209: 21-32.

   17-   Rasouli Sedghiani M.H., Sadeghi Azad S., Brin M., Sepehr A. and Dolati B. 2016. The effect of silicate solubilizing bacteria on the release of potassium from the micaceous minerals and its uptake by maize. Journal of Soil Science 78: 89-102. (In Persian with English abstract)

   18-   Sandhya V., Ali S.Z., Grover M., Reddy G., and Venkateswarlu B. 2010. Effect of plant growth promoting Pseudomonas spp. on compatible solutes, antioxidant status and plant growth of maize under drought stress. Plant Growth Regulation 62(1): 21-30.

   19-   Smirnoff N., and Cumbes Q.J. 1989. Hydroxyl radical scavenging activity of compatible solutes. Phytochemistry 28(4): 1057-1060.

   20-   Subramanian P., Mageswari A., Kim K., Lee Y., and Sa T. 2015. Psychrotolerant endophytic Pseudomonas sp. strains OB155 and OS261 induced chilling resistance in tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum Mill.) by activation of their antioxidant capacity. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 28(10): 1073-1081.

   21-   Valencia-Cantero E., Hernández-Calderón E., Velázquez-Becerra C., López-Meza J.E., Alfaro-Cuevas R., and López-Bucio J. 2007. Role of dissimilatory fermentative iron-reducing bacteria in Fe uptake by common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) plants grown in alkaline soil. Plant and Soil 291(1-2): 263-273.

   22-   Vranova V., Rejsek K., Skene K. R., and Formanek P. 2011. Non-protein amino acids: plant, soil and ecosystem interactions. Plant and Soil 342(1-2): 31-48.

   23-   Xiao-Hui F., Zhang S.A., Xiao-Dan M., Yun-Cong L., Yu-Qing F., and Zhi-Guang L. 2017. Effect of PGPR and N source on plant growth and N, P uptake by tomato grown in calcareous soils. Pedosphere 27(6): 1027-1036.

   24-   Xie H., Pasternak J., and Glick B.R. 1996. Isolation and characterization of mutants of the plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium Pseudomonas putida GR12-2 that overproduce indoleacetic acid. Current Microbiology 32(2): 67-71.

   25-   Zhang C., and Kong F. 2014. Isolation and identification of potassium-solubilizing bacteria from tobacco rhizospheric soil and their effect on tobacco plants. Applied Soil Ecology 82: 18-25.

   26-   Zorb C., Senbayram M., and Peiter E. 2014. Potassium in agriculture–status and perspectives. Journal of Plant Physiology 171(9): 656-669.