Dart, P J

Nambiar, P T C

ICRISAT Open Access Repository

RESPONSE GROUNDNUT CARACN l S HYPOGAEA I. ) T 0 RH I ZOB I UH I NOCULAT I ON Tachn i ca l Report International Crops Research Institute for the Ssrnl-Artd Tropicr IGRlSAT Patrrrcharu P.Q.  Andhra Ptaclsnh 602 324, India P.J. Dart P.T.C. bmbfar A*? .  GhugaI tachnl ccrl Ass t strnt Technical As%irtant F l r l d  Asslstmt F i e l d  Arrrlstant F l r l d  Asslstc~t * n\r pod y l r l d  of cv bbut  3)-1, ratarud I n  hd91rr Pracksh a8 i b d l r i  3, was 8 i g n i f t u n t l y  Incnrred w)MI Enocul4tod w i t h  tha RhlrobEm str41n WC 92 rt thc ICRISAT Cootor, o w r  uvoral Stare during the 1981 rainy mason. "so responses worm obtainad In rolls where groundnut had bean graun e 4 r l f e r .  8nd tho unlnoculrtad plants hrd 200-600 nodule8 par p l a n t  60 drys a f t e r  plrnttng. * The y l e l d  response war In the rrnga of 2.82 to 40% (60 to 1000 kg pods/ha) over thl unlnoculrtsd control.  * Thns 70 gram peat packets (containing 1 0 ~ - 1 0 ' ~  Rhlzoblum ccl Idprm p e t )  arc required to  inoculrte m a  hectare. ~ n u f a c t u r e r r  could sell p a t  packets at Rs.lO"15 each, * UQ do not suggest that Rhizobium stra in NC 92 Is m l x a d  with other stra ins.  * Ye re-nd that tb stra in  should be applted as r Ilquld (peat mixed with water) blow the seed (3-4 nrllrssb).  I f  the seeds are sawn by h d ,  the lnoculant c o u l d  bb appl led by mans of a plast tc j e r q  a n ,  or a simllrr mta inar ,  f i t t e d  with r smdI  t u b  (T~Q. I ) .  Qv lwd for ns#hntud ~ m t n g .  Fig.  1. A simple procedure t o  Inoculate groundnut. Peat contajnlng rhlzobla I s  mixed with water and added I n  the farm before saw1 ng . 3 (>I0 /g dry r o l l )  of t h i s  typr of ilhl;lobIun, and gmundnut Is uaual l y  w d u l r t a d  In those sol Is. Hcmver, t b  p r o m o r  of nodular on roots o f  thr p r a n L u t  p l m t  dp.8 not n u n  t h t  sufflclant M2 I n  baing ttxod fo r  good growth o f  the host ptmt (#war,  1974). t n o c u l r t l m  with e f f sc t l ve  Rhfroblum s t r r l no  ham i n cn r sad  pod ylald In  fleldr whnra grounbut had not ken  pravlour ly g row (Seegar, 1961; Shlnnhl rt r l  - ' ' 1967; Schlffnrnn m d  Alprr, 1968; Chr,nry, 1975; P e t t l t  a t  - r l  * 1975; Burton, 1976). Them rrr fw r r po r t r  on tha effect o f  lPllzoblum Inoculrtlon on gmundnut d a r e  thr crop had bwn prrv lous ly  g row.  In thr U.S.A. inoculattor, d l d  not tncrarse pod y l r l d l i  In a t ths r  A l r W  ( ~ l l t b l d ,  A . E .  p s r m a l  c o m n u n i ~ t i m )  or Worth Carolina (Wynncr, J b C b  prronrl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f i f c a t f o n ) ~  A t  Ludhlrna, India, Arorr -I at 81. (1970) obs6rved t h r t  the ~ e s d  prote in contmt ,  but not tho pod y l r l d ,  was incrsrrsad by lrroculat Ion. Subb ItO (1976) observed tht Rhllloblm I n ~ c u l r t  ton reru l  ted i n  &creawd y ie lds  i n  the A l  I - lndfa caordinrtsd t r l r l s  conducted o w r  several reasons, tbawar, Sundrrr RIO (1971) reported pod y t s l d  i n c r r a u s  a f t e r  I ( h i z o b f ~  l n o c u l a t h  a t  HyCrabsd ( l nd t i ) .  Vln Der bm e t  81. (1974) m d u c t r d  alavbn seed ircoculrtim trlrlr over th rc r  susms --i n  d i f f e ran t  locatfonr In South Afrlcl, *re groundnuts had been cmpprd i n t c n r i m l y .  They obta ined  incrcrrrwd w d  y I r l d  in  only one t r t r l ,  crwrbctrd a t  B u f f ~ l s p m r t .  Clrncv thwr authors ruggestrd that  m d  inaulrt!on my ba suparflucws un&r thr enlrtlng r g r l w l t u r a l  prrctlmr in k u t h  Afrfcr. # report ham tk n r u l t r  of Ilhiraobtm tmculrtlar, trfrlr condretrd in 1CUlSA.T f ields rt Patmchrru, wrr Hydrrrbrd, lrrdla fm uaron. h u  t r f a l r  wrto m d u c t r d  In  flrlda rhrn the nattw Mttrobtun -2 4 populrtion of  ccrwa mlrullmy rhflobla m g a d  from 10 to 10 19 r o l l ,  r r d  where unlnoculated contro l  p l d t s  f o m d  ZOO to 600 nodul*s/plmt at 60-70 days a f t e r  plantlnp. t r o v l h u t  h .pprdv l& ly  b..n prow racantly lvrr ' 9 In  most o f  these flrlds (Tabla I ) .  kwral c d  t lvar  md Miroblun cambinat ions were tcsgtcrd during these t r l a l b .  A. MATERIAL AND HETHODS 1 .  Cut t u r d  Pract i c e s  : The exparimnts ware conductad during the r r iny  $arson (utu8l l y  mid June to October) wrd the I r r igated  postrrlny ~)e(~rcm b i d  N o d r  to k r c h ) .  The crops an grow on rldpes 75 cn apart wlth an In row sprclng o f  IS cm. The plants wore I r r lgatsd  during the ~ o s t r r l n y  rearm r t  7 to 10 days intervals ,  and w r s  regular1 y protsctcrd by sprays rgr  tnst Insect pests. Experiments during the 1977 and 1978 rr lny season, and tha 1978 postrainy season a t  ICRISAT wcra l a i d  out In r rrndcwnls~d block drstgn. The experiment during the 1981 ralny reason a t  Oharwar was Ia ld  out In a split plot &sign with cu l t iver r  8s main plots md Rhfroblum traatmnts as sub plots. A l l  other experiments wts s p l i t  plot  designs wlth the FIhizobium treatment as the main plots and cul t lvars as thrs sub plots.  The plot size and harvest areas are sham In Table 1 .  2. Cultlvars: Cultlvrrs used In t h w  exprinmtr wra Argentin@, Ah 8109 M l r h ] $  IW 2 (Valencla); Uadlrl 71-1, Rokrt 33-1, lCGS 17, ICQS 22, md IrErGCS 15 ( ~ l r g l n i a ) .  (h.l) hlphrr pod y l r l L  thn tha unlnoculrted control (Tbblas 3-61. Ih. Incruse In pod yield m g . d  fron 18 to 341. A t  h m r .  kkrt 33-1, p r o h a d  ut mm y l r l d  *kn 1noculrt.d wlth the rtraln WC 9 (Tabla 7). h r o  wr no s l p n l f l u n t  lncnaw in md yl.14 r m g  tha o t h r  wltlvrrl s t r a i n  cocnblnatlonr tasted, anorpt f o r  bbut 3 3 4  tnoculrtad wlth S+/% and bbut  33-1 .  L r l n g  1961 u v a n  Rhlzoblum r t to lns,  axcludlng tha s t r a i n  MC 92, r e  tasted agalnst 4 c u l t l v a r r ,  but than ws no rtgnlftunt difference i n  pod y i s t d a s  a n s u l t  of I n o c u l r t l m  (Tabla 8). In 41) s x p l r i m n t s  i m c u l r t  far, d l d  not r f f a c t  rha l  l lng paruntrga. A pooled rna lys l s  o f  v a r l a n u  dona owr srvan ~ x ~ l r l n m n t s  shomd r s i g n l f l a n t  (b .01 )  fncrerrs In y l e l d  o f  Rokrt 33-1 inoculated wlth ' 4  @ th4 s t r i l l n  NC 92. The average l n c r r r u  In pod y t o l d  war that  of tho i n te rac t  ion was s t g n i f l u n t  ( ~ > . 0 1 )  an unwelghtsd r n r i y s t r  was prsfrrrad f o r  the above test (Cochrrn end Cox, 1957). A rlmi tar comprt tbl l  i t y  tmtwban *but 33-1 and the strain  NC 92 h s  b-n reported frun Jwrag~dh, lndlr  (J.H. Kulkarni,  p a r .  cam.). Such r r t m n g  cu l t l v r r / lh lzub lum interact  ion under f i e l d  cmdit lons resu l t ing  I n  increased pod y i e l d  over s e a m s  has not krrrn reported r c l r l f s r .  tbw@ver, c u l t l v r r  K RhIzobim l n t r r s c t i m  for  nodulation has brutn oburvrd wl t h  grounbrut g r o w  under s t e r i l e  condltlms in r glasshouse (,Burton, 1976; Uynne at  -a1 - 9 1980; The nobles ure  collectad by Protrrmr W.C. 6 y o r y  of YCLU (klrtqh, u.S.A.) and t h  atraln *W t ro l r t ed  by mIcmbiatoglstr rt NCSU. Ih strrrfn wrr suppl led to us as a part of tb MCSUIICRISAT col laborrtiw pmjact on Y F  (Blolagluf I4ltrop.n Flutlm). Ul th tk .  help of sc len t l s t s  of th Al l - India Coordinated Project on Ollsoads (AlCORP0) wc rra~ w r n n t l y  axr ln lng  whather tkl8 capattblllty betwoan b b u t  33-1 and MC 92 exlrtr ~t other locatlons In India. T h  cv Robwt 33-1 i s  r mlarsrrd v r r l r t y  In Andhra Prcdorh Stata, and I f  thls cul t iv r r /NC 92 camprrtfbl l l ty plrrlrtr o w r  locat lanr ,  inoculrtfm of Robut 33-1 with the s t ra in  NC $2 should h l p  to  lncnrrr groundnut production in India .  To rchisva thls will raqulre good q u r l t t y  inoculrnt strr lnr;. 2. flethods o f  f l e l d  inocu l r t  Ion o f  rhlzoblr: Direct application o f  cu l tures of Rhitobium to  ssed Is t b  most comnrm form of legume inoculation. Howaver shellad groundnuts r r a  too fraglla! to  be lnoculr tsd directly. Horwvsr, s w d  treatment with fungicides toxic to rh l rob ia  wore another d l f f t c u l t y  In di rec t  read lnoculrt iqn of groundnut (Curl ey md Burton, 1975). A l  t s rn r te l  y  Rhla~blm can be added t o  the sol I as a grrnul r tad fonnulr t lon ( h n l r s r ,  1960; Fraser 1966, 1975) or In a l i q u i d  clddrd blow the seed hole (~chlffmmn and Alper, 1968; *aver, 1969; Bro&wll at - rl * * 1986). During ths 1977 and 1978 rainy s e a m s ,  and the 1977-78 postr r lny searan, wr NC 92 granular l n o w l m  was af fec t i ve  (Tables 1 ,  2 & 3 1 ,  rhere.8 during th that m d  In the gr rnu l r r  fornrtton I n h l b f t r  crplllary movanrnt of  mter to the smd, and under a wt8r stress sfturtfon this l a d s  to pOor p~n1n.t tm. b r i n g  ttw I9aQ r r lny  w r m ,  41 4 nsu I  t of m I n l t l a l  -tor c t n s s ,  r r d r  Inoculated with 4 g m u l a r  f o u t t a r  hrd poor gerninrt la (73%) a$ ~ lp ( imd  tto 98% in  l l g u l d  lnoculrted weds (Table 10). W v a r ,  rhvl rdrqvr t r  w t a r  us rvai l8ble gemlnrtla, u s  not r f f rc ted by g r n u l r r  inoculu. P I 4 t  grnular, r s  uwd by taanarcial c a p m l r s  In the USA, may k k t t r r  c a r r l r r r  than smd. Dirclct srad inocul8tlcwr mrs r h o  f w d  t~ &C~OI)H w d  grrminrtion during the 1980 rainy #uson (78blo 10). f .  Effect of  mix ing  inoculrnt r t r r l n s  Commcrctal Inoculrnts s a ~ t l m r r  contaln two or more r t ra lns  o f  Rhizobium In order to safrgurrd th fa1 Iu r r  o f  r r lngle s t r d n .  tbmrver, during the 1980 md 1981 rainy seasons, m found that Inocu l r t im wtth a  single s t r a i n  o f  NC 92 wrr suprrior to 8 mlnturo of thr strains NC 92, 21/70, rnd It 6004, I n  Ahbarn,  USA, comurcl r l  Rhitoblm mixture an gmundnut produced fewer nodules and a lamr plant wslght than r r lnglr  stra in (A.E. H i l  t b o l d ,  parsmnrl camwrniution). Thsra r r e  aeverrl dangers In  using mixed s t r r fns  In m inoculum s . g . ,  ( I )  cmtral of production quality 1 %  more d l f f l c u l t  to  m r u r r  8s each r t r a l n  murt be grow i n  a broth separately . and t h n  added to  the carrier, (I I )  D l  ffarent 181 mult ip l  icat ion rater of thr btralns rnry r r r o l  t In Is rg t  dlffsrancar In t h  f ina l  prepared Inoculant, ( 1  1 1 )  Camp.tltlon betwren the r t r r l n r  In foming nodules my resul t In the Irwt af fect  Ive ccwnblnrt ior, daAtnatlng others fo l  lowing inowla t  ion (kt. c Brockul  I , 1976). UI rra currsntly invert l g ~ t  In9 thr ampet1 t ivs r b i l  l t y  of  d l f f a r rn t  i n o w l u  strains In foming nodules w l t h  w v r r r l  pmr ls lng grandnut i l ~ r .  (kr mrulta tndlota that a u k t m t t r l  Incnrsor In pnnmbrut pod yirlds em b. obtotmlrl. by urlng a carbtnrtlon of tb cut tlvar by ttm ndtlur Mimbtun population. To our hawladgo, t h l a  I8 th+ f irst  raport of strong host-cultlvrr Rhlzo4Im cap.tlblllty oburwod over savard rcrm8 In 8 f t o l d  g r o n  groundnut crop rrrultlng *rw., S.K.. Srln l .  J.L.. Wdil ,  R.C. md Smdu, R a t 8  (1910). Study @f dvlul c a p s 1  tlon md y i e l d  of $munLut a8 r f fectod by ihlmbiu Inocul8t ton. Olarq lnur  a: 279-2110. bm1.r. C. (19(0). S~lo~IIYl lroblm -- I agu lm uus: r a p c t s  prttwilarr rru mglons t ropicr ler .  hn. Inat. hrtwr ( k r l r )  597-556. Burton. J.C. (1976). P r r g u t l c  r r p c t r  of  t h  ihlmblwn i r ~ u f n o u s  p l m t  -arsocir t  Ion. In Procmdings of tho 'lrt ln t r rnr t lo r r r l  Srynrrlun on -Nltrogan F i u t i o n  Val. 2 (Edr. V.E. tlmtm n d  C.J. Mymm) pp 429-446, krchmn, R . E ,  wrd Glbkms, W . E .  (Go-€dl tors). (1974). k rgay ' s  mrnurl of thtonainatlvs b~cter fo logy,  8th Edf tlm pp 263-264. W? lllrmr md LlroJrmetIl, J., C lu l t ,  R.R., Cbw, O . L . ,  M y ,  F.W., &rh, H., md Corbln, E.J .  (1980). kr appraisal of p r a c t i a l  r l t c rmr t t v r r  to l s g w  seed inoculrt lon: Flold rwparlmr;nts on seed bod lnoculatfm with so l id  md l i qu id  lnoculmtr .  Austrb l lm .burnrl of  Agrfculturo Research: 2; 47-60. Chesney, A.0. (1975). Fcr r t l  l i z r r  studios with groundnuts on the bnrm sands of Guyma. I. Effscts of n i t rogm,  inoculun, magnsrlwn, md f r i  t tad micranutrlentr, Agronomy Journal 67: - 7-10. Cuchran, W.G. and COX, G.H. (1957). - In Ewgl r lmnt r l  Dartgns, pp. 561, John Yi  ley b b s ,  New Vork. Curky. R . L . .  and Ourton. J.C. (1975). bAle(rt lb1l l ty o f  ilhfroblum jrparlw w i t h  dmlol  seed p ro tac tn ts .  Agmn~y journrl , 6J: 807-808. bets, R.A. and bnodru l l ,  J. (1976). llhlzoblum r t r r l n  canprtl trm md host f n te r r c t fm  for nodulrtlorr. - In Plant k l r t t o n s  In Pastuns, ~rocwdings of r sy.poaium hald i n  Brirbma pp 202-216 ( tdl  tor, J.R. Wf lm), CSIRO, Austral 18. fwd. E.8.. Irldwln. 1.1.. n d  k b y ,  E. ( IW). Root W u l a  b e t a r k  md iaocrinou8 plmtr. U l l u * n l t y  of Wlromrfn Studlea 8: 51. Frhur, R.E. (I*). ?nlnoculrtlm of ! u a m  md. Journal Wl1.d kct r r lo logy .  3: S17-5%. F r r w r ,  HOE. (1975). A n thod of  .w l tu t lnq  Rhlmblu nl l lot1 on pow* --grmulas to torn r pn- lnoculnt ' for  lucerne mad. Journal of Appl led b c t a r  lilogy 9: 345-5 1 .  Ps t t l t ,  R . E . ,  Ulrvar, R.U., T a k r ,  R.A.0 md Strlchler, C ,R ,  (1975). b n a f l c l r l  soil m l c m r g m l m s .  - In h n u t  Praductlon In Tams (Ed. J.L. Ill 1 l r r )  pp 26-33. k x a s  Agrlcul t u r d  Expr lnnta l  Stat Ion, Texas A b M Un iwr r l t y ,  f a u s ,  U .S .A .  k h l f f - ,  J. ,  md Alper, Y .  0968) .  rnocu!rtlon of pernuts by a p p l l a t l o n  of  Rhltoblum surpmrlon into ttu p l n t l n g  furrows. Expclr i l~ntr l  Agrfcul turrr - 4: 219-226. o r  J ( I .  Effrcts d'une f w r a  rootar sur la noduirtlon at  Ir rendwncrnt de l 'ar rchldr .  h l l rst tn  de I ' l n s t l t u t  Agrocromtque st  &# Strtlons 4t bdrerchsn de Cunbloux 29: 197-218. Sh inh l ,  D . ,  Yl i f fmnn,  J . .  Uost, V . ,  0 l o r i  H. md Alp.r, Y e  (1967). Effect of  sol 1 mlsturuc regime on nodutatlm o f  Inoculrtad pernuts, Agronany Journal , - 59: 397-400. Subb h, 1.5 .  (1976). f iold response of iegunrr in lndlr  to lnourlatlan md fertilizer applicrtlons. - In Symbiottc Witrogan F l u t i o n  In P l a n t s  ( ~ d .  P .S .  ~ u t m )  pp 255-268. Cnbridp. L i v e r ~ ) t ~  Press, -r J*A* (1910). ?r l *K t l~~  md w l l t y  m t m l  of' 1.p- Inoculmtr. In bthodr of Evalrwtlng Blologlul Mltrogn tlutlm (Ed. f. J. krg.rwn) pp 4b-533. &h W h y  6 - 8 ,  Ollchrtar. V n  i*r k-, S.?.. S t r l g b ,  B.U. md &I, C.J. (1974). Ommdnut n s p r r s e  to swd ~noculat Ion u n h r  .rrtmrIva rgrlcul t u n  pract lcrr in South Afrlcrn sollr. Phytophyl8ttIc(, - 6: P P 5 m j O 2 .  Y.lnr, R.W. (lc#9). Populrtlons of ilhlzoblun Japarlw in Iom roll8 and lnoculu level nwded tor nodulatlon of C l y c l ~  ux (L.) -b r r l l l .  Ph.0. thorlr, lou State Unlv. UIavw, R.W. (1971). Effactlvonarr of rhiaoblr fomlng nodulrs on Texas. gram panutr. P u n u t  Sclwu I I : 23-25. Vynu, J . C . ,  Ellun, G.M., urd k h n u u l s ,  1.4. (1980). Incrur ing  nl  trog.n f txr t lon  of the groundnut by r t r r l n  ad host wlrctlm. In Prowedlngr - Internrtlonrl Wr(lrbp on Crwndnutr (Edr. R.V. - ~fbkrrrr) pp 95-109 ICRISAT, Patmcheru, India. U @ ss, L I  L *- Uninocu18ted tnocutr tad Sf for treatment man tv ( 8 )  I C 6009 WC 92 5 1  for tmtnmt man cv ( t )  T*l* 0: 6-t told la tlr IS& nty 2 Pwma) w *lmblm temml4ttm , I R t S A t  Cantor tnr Coltlvar k d l t i  11-1 kkrt 33-1 8189 %/To )160 &o I C  6006 480 &o nc 43.3 460 960 m 7.2 450 9)a MC 92 5 70 1166 IhtnocuIrted Too 810 S f  for t t w t l l ~ r t  -.. + 24.3 ( t )  Haln plots 32.5, Sub plots 20 h b t r  5 :  Effect of d f f fermt  mmthod of  l1~1culatlon an growbrut (cv lbbut 33-1) yfrld (Kg pod/hr) In t h  1980 rr lny wrm, 1CRISAT Cantar Wlnoculrted SE fior nsthed of Inoculation SE for minoartatad and I n a u l a t d  Sf for treatment man CV (%) b i n  plotr I j ;  Sub plots 12 Table 7: Groundnut y i e l d  n r p o n u  pod/ha) to Rhizoblm lnoculrtlon In  the 1981 rainy mason, Dhrrwr Cult fvclr b b u t  3 3 4  J 1 1  S f  for treatment man v + 176.5 cv (%I  23 table 8: krmu of growhut y t d d  o(O podha) to ~%lrdlu inawlation In tho 1961 rainy ream, I C R I ~ ~  Tt.rtnrnt Cu1 ttvar rrabut 33-1 J 1 1  ICGS 22 rcos 17 SE for trertlawt m8n cv (3 bin plots I f ;  Sub plots I I - -- h s  t rr nv' ( 19781 79) k l ~ '  (19791 bstr.iny4 ( 1 9 7 ~ / & )  k i n ?  (1980) b r t r r i n y 4  (19b l81)  k i b r  S ~ ~ U W I '  ( S t  I )  (1981) k ~ n v  w r m  (SItr.2) ( I g I )  b Rainy warm (198l)  *(yr Tabla 10: Effect of wthads of Cnocrrl4tEori WI $ g r r ~ l f i t l ~  of groondrrut 1980 frlny #.rum l CR l SAT 401 Ipur 1 .  Control 2 .  Soed 3 .  Lfquid I n  furrow 4 .  Granular SE for t rsa tmnt  man cv ( b )  I .  Control - ~ninoculaC.d S - ~ S  t r u t o d  with Thlrm funglcid.. 2 .  Seed slurry - seeds mixad with p u t  In aqueous m t h y l  csllulosa (1.3Y) and a i r  drlrsd, T h y  -10 I r t a r  treated with Thtrm. 3 .  L i q u t d  - Peat mixed I n  -tar and 7-10 rnl 8d&d below the smd hale just before s w i n g  tk fwrgfcfdr, treated ~ e e d r  4. Granular - rand w U d  with p..t In rquaour cnth I crllulo~8 0 . S t )  soui ng . 1 and a i r  dried. 1-2 of th tr  rand war placed be ow the mad rt 

Response of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to Rhizobium inoculation

http://oar.icrisat.org/7787/1/RP%2002541.pdf

Response of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to Rhizobium inoculation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ICRISAT Open Access Repository