Mineral Gübre ve Bitki Büyümesini Teşvik Eden Bakteriyel Formülasyonların Tritikale (X Triticosecale Wittmack) Verimi ve Verim Bileşenleri Üzerindeki Etkisi

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, kontrol, mineral gübre NP (önerilen 12 kg/da N, 8 kg/da P), bir ticari mikrobiyal gübre (TMG) ve azot fikseri, fosfat çözücü, ACC deaminaze ve indol asetik asit üretici üçlü bakterilerden oluşturulan sekiz biyolojik gübre formülasyonu (F1: Pseudomonas putida G08 + Bacillus subtilis RA7 + Bacillus megaterium G81; F2: Pseudomonas koreensis A96 + Bacillus licheniformis A38 + Comamonas sp. A3; F3: Pseudomonas putida A110 + Bacillus megaterium G81; F4: Pseudomonas putida A128 + Pseudomonas stutzeri B171 + Bacillus pumilus A54; F5: Pseudomonas putida A128+ Pseudomonas sp. A71 + Bacillus pumilus A54; F6: Pseudomonas putida G08+ Bacillus subtilis RA7 + Bacillus megaterium RA12; F7: Pseudomonas putida RA1+ Bacillus megaterium G180 + Bacillus atrophaeus RA16; ve F8: Pseudomonas stutzeri B171+ Peribacillus simplex B12 + Bacillus megaterium G180), uygulamalarının Çanakkale tarla koşullarında tritikale Karma 2000 (×Triticosecale Wittmack) gelişme, verim ve kalite üzerindeki olası etkileri değerlendirilmiştir. Tritikalede NP, TMG, F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7 ve F8 uygulamalarının kontrole kıyasla sırasıyla, bitki yüksekliğinde %26,7, 9,1, 21,0, 15,8, 23,4, 5,9, 16,0, 19,6, 3,6 ve 9,9; başak uzunluğu %18,3, 9,5, 15,5, 8,5, 13,6, 6,6, 11,7, 10,1, 6,3 ve 8,5; başakta başakçık sayısı %12,5, 11,8, 7,2, 7,7, 10,3, 7,7, 7,5, 12,0, 4,7 ve 8,1; başakta tane sayısı %21,4, 12,2, 13,2, 14,4, 17,6, 7,8, 11,6, 14,4, 7,0 ve 13,1; başakta tane ağırlığı %22,5, 16,6, 20,5, 18,2, 19.9, 11,8, 17,3, 22,8, 9,7 ve 14,7; tane verimi %29,9, 19,1, 29,6, 26,0, 31,2, 13,7, 24,4, 27,1, 9,8 ve 18,6; sap verimi %34,6, 13,3, 29,5, 20,3, 30,6, 11,4, 23,3, 22,9, 8,4 ve 15,3; erken hamur olum dönemi klorofil içeriği %24,8, 9,4, 9,8, 10,0, 23,0, 8,2, 10,1,12,3, 8,2 ve 9,2; bin tane ağırlığı %19,3,18,3, 16,5, 15,5, 20,9, 13,2, 14,2, 17,8, 14,0 ve14,8 ve hektolitre ağırlığında %21,0, 9,8, 15,7, 15,9, 17,2, 5,8, 9,1, 18,8, 5,0 ve 9,1 oranında artış sağladığı belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Mikrobiyal aşılama
• Gelişme
• Verim
• Tritikale
• biyoformülasyon

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK

Project Number

123O044

Ethical Statement

Yazarlar, makaleye eşit oranda katkıda bulunduklarını kabul etmektedirler.

Thanks

Bu çalışma, Türkiye Bilim ve Teknolojik Araştırma Konseyi (TÜBİTAK) tarafından sağlanan bir hibe (TOVAG; proje 123O044) ile finansal olarak desteklenmiştir. Yazarlar, finansal destekleri için TÜBİTAK'a teşekkür eder. Ayrıca, bu araştırma makalesi sorumlu yazar Osman DAVUTLAR'ın Yüksek Lisans tezinden üretilmiştir.

Effect of Mineral Fertilizer and Plant Growth-Promoting Bacterial Formulations on Yield and Yield Components in Triticale (X Triticosecale Wittmack)

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate possible effects of mineral NP fertilizer (120 kg ha-1 N and 80 kg ha-1 N P), one commercial liquid bio-fertilizer (CBF) and N2-fixing and P-solubilizing, ACC deaminase-containing and IAA-producing bacteria-based eight bio-fertilizers formulations in triple strains combinations (F1: Pseudomonas putida G08 + Bacillus subtilis RA7 + Bacillus megaterium G81; F2: Pseudomonas koreensis A96 + Bacillus licheniformis A38 + Comamonas sp. A3; F3: Pseudomonas putida A110 + Bacillus megaterium G81; F4: Pseudomonas putida A128 + Pseudomonas stutzeri B171 + Bacillus pumilus A54; F5: Pseudomonas putida A128+ Pseudomonas sp. A71 + Bacillus pumilus A54; F6: Pseudomonas putida G08+ Bacillus subtilis RA7 + Bacillus megaterium RA12; F7: Pseudomonas putida RA1+ Bacillus megaterium G180 + Bacillus atrophaeus RA16; and F8: Pseudomonas stutzeri B171+ Peribacillus simplex B12 + Bacillus megaterium G180) on the growth, yield, and nutrient uptake in Karma-2000 triticale (×Triticosecale Wittmack) cultivar under field conditions of Çanakkale. Applications of wheat with NP, TMG, F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, and F8 increased plant height by 26.7, 9.1, 21.0, 15.8, 23.4, 5.9, 16.0, 19.6, 3.6, and 9.9% as compared to the control; spike length by %18.3, 9.5, 15.5, 8.5, 13.6, 6.6, 11.7, 10.1, 6.3, and 8.5 %; number of spikelet per spike by %12.5, 11.8, 7.2, 7.7, 10.3, 7.7, 7.5, 12.0, 4.7, and 8.1%; number of grain per spike by %21.4, 12.2, 13.2, 14.4, 17.6, 7.8, 11.6, 14.4, 7.0, and 13.1%; grain weight per spike by 22.5, 16.6, 20.5, 18.2, 19.9, 11.8, 17.3, 22.8, 9.7, and 14.7%; grain yield by 29.9, 19.1, 29.6, 26.0, 31.2, 13.7, 24.4, 27.1, 9.8, and 18.6%; straw yield by 34.6, 13.3, 29.5, 20.3, 30.6, 11.4, 23.3, 22.9, 8.4, and 15.3%; chlorophyll content at early dough by 24.8, 9.4, 9.8, 10.0, 23.0, 8.2, 10.1, 12.3, 8.2, and 9.2%; thousand grain weight by 19.3, 18.3, 16.5, 15.5, 20.9, 13.2, 14,2, 17.8, 14.0, and 14.0%, and hectoliter weight by 21.0, 9.8, 15.7, 15.9, 17.2, 5.8, 9.1, 18.8, 5.0, and 9.1%, respectively.

Keywords

• Triticale
• Yield
• Microbial inoculation
• Bioformulation
• PGPR

Supporting Institution

TUBITAK

Project Number

123O044

Ethical Statement

The authors acknowledge that they have contributed to the article in equal measure.

Thanks

This study was supported financially by a grant (TOVAG; project 123O044) from the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBİTAK). The authors thank TUBITAK for their financial support. Additionally, this research article was produced from the MS Thesis of the corresponding author, Osman DAVUTLAR.

References

1. Aghaei, F., Seyed Sharifi, R., & Farzaneh, S. (2024). Changes induced in physiological indicators and performance of Triticale (X Triticosecale Wittmack) under water stress by some growth promoting bacteria and nanoparticles. Environmental Stresses and Crop Sciences, 17(3), 549-567.
2. Barati, V., Bijanzadeh, E., & Zinati, Z. (2020). Nitrogen source and deficit irrigation influence on yield and nitrogen translocation of triticale in an arid mediterranean agroecosystem. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 22(5), 1295-1311.
3. Batykova, Z., Kistaubayeva, A., Savitskaya, I., & Pidlisnyuk, V. (2024). Isolation and study of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria from Triticosecale Wittmack growing in Almaty region. International Journal of Biology and Chemistry, 17(1), 53-59.
4. Bhattacharyya, P. N., & Jha, D. K. (2012). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): Emergence in agriculture. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 28, 1327-1350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11274-011-0979-9.
5. Blum, A. (2014). The abiotic stress response and adaptation of triticale – A review. Cereal Research Communications, 42(3), 359-375. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24689411.
6. Cakmakci, R., Dönmez, M. F., & Erdoğan, Ü. (2007). The effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on barley seedling growth, nutrient uptake, some soil properties, and bacterial counts. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 31(3): 189-99.
7. Cakmakci, R., Turan, M., Gulluce, M., & Sahin, F. (2014). Rhizobacteria for reduced fertilizer inputs in wheat (Triticum aestivum spp. vulgare) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) on Aridisols in Turkey. International Journal of Plant Production, 8(2): 163-182.
8. Canbolat, M. Y., Bilen, S., Çakmakçi, R., Şahin, F., & Aydin, A. (2006). Effect of plant growth-promoting bacteria and soil compaction on barley seedling growth, nutrient uptake, soil properties and rhizosphere microflora. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 42(4): 350-357. DOI:10.1007/s00374-005-0034-9

9. Che, J., Bai, Y., Li, X., Ye, J., Liao, H., Cui, P., Yu, Z., & Zhou, S. (2021). Linking microbial community structure with molecular composition of dissolved organic matter during an industrial-scale composting. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 405, 124281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124281
10. Cui, L., Xu, L., Wang, H., Fan, X., Yan, C., Zhang, Y., Jiang, C., Zhou, T., Guo, Q., Sun, Y., et al. (2025). Evaluation of dual-purpose triticale: Grain and forage productivity and quality under semi-arid conditions. Agronomy, 15, 881. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040881.
11. Çakmakçi, R., Dönmez, F., Aydın, A., & Şahin, F. (2006). Growth promotion of plants by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria under greenhouse and two different field soil conditions. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 38(6): 1482-1487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.09.019
12. Çakmakçı, R., Ertürk, Y., Sekban, R., Haznedar, A., & Varmazyari, A. (2013). Effect of single and mixed cultures of plant growth promoting bacteria and mineral fertilizers on the growth, yield and nutrient uptake of tea (Camellia sinensis). Soil-Water Journal, 2(1), 653-662.
13. Çakmakçı, R. (2016). Screening of multi-trait rhizobacteria for improving the growth, enzyme activities, and nutrient uptake of tea (Camellia sinensis). Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 47(13-14), 1680-1690. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2016.1206559
14. Çakmakçı, R. (2019). The variability of the predominant culturable plant growth-promoting rhizobacterial diversity in the acidic tea rhizosphere soils in the Eastern Black Sea Region. Alinteri Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 34(2), 175-181. DOI: 10.28955/alinterizbd.639020 Çakmakçı, R., Turan, M., Kıtır, N., Güneş, A., Nikerel, E., Özdemir, B. S., Yıldırım, E., Olgun, M., Topçuoğlu, B., Tüfenkçi, Ş., Karaman, M. R., Tarhan, L., & Mokhtari, N. E. P. (2017). The role of soil beneficial bacteria in wheat production: A review. Wanyera, R., & Owuoche, J. (Eds.), In: Wheat Improvement, Management and Utilization, Chapter 7, pp. 115-149, Intech, DOI: 10.5772/67274
15. Fitouri, S. D., Boudabbous, K., Ben Romdhane, A., Hammami, S. T., Dhib, W., Ben-Jeddi, F., Karmous, C., & Ben Youssef, S. (2022). Agronomic potential of biofertilizers on growth, yields and nutritional quality of a vetch-oat-triticale intercropping system. Agrociencia, 56(4), 415-432. https://doi.org/10.47163/agrociencia
16. Güler, M. (2024). Identification of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) isolated from lavender (Lavandula angustifolia L.) and determination of their antifungal activity against Fusarium oxysporum. ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 8(4): 945-963. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.13358537.
17. Hanoğlu Oral, H. (2024). Forage yields and nutritive values of oat and triticale pastures for grazing sheep in early spring. PeerJ, 12: e17840. http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17840.
18. Han, G., Yan, H., Li, L., & An, D. (2025). Advancing wheat breeding using rye: A key contribution to wheat breeding history. Trends in Biotechnology, 43(9), 2170-2183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2025.03.008.
19. Kumar, S., Diksha, Sindhu, S. S., & Kumar, R. (2022). Biofertilizers: An ecofriendly technology for nutrient recycling and environmental sustainability. Current Research in Microbial Sciences, 3, 100094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crmicr.2021.100094
20. Lestingi, A., De Giorgio, D., Montemurro, F., Convertini, G., & Laudadio, V. (2007). Effects of bio-activators on yield and quality composition of triticale forage as an animal food resources. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 5(1): 164-171.
21. Mazurenko, B., Novytska, N., & Honchar, L. (2020). Response of spring and facultative triticale on microbial preparation (Azospirillum brasilense and Bacillus polymyxa) by different nitrogen nutrition. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 21(4), 763-774. https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/21.4.2914
22. Moharrami, F., Bolandnazar, S., Salteh, S. A., & Sarikhani, M. (2026). Plant growth-promoting microorganisms and phosphorus levels influence growth, nutrient uptake, and secondary metabolites in hydroponic basil. Scientific Reports, 16: 18397. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-45285-8
23. Naseri-Minabi, G., Barati, V., Boostani, H. R., & Bijanzadeh, E. (2025). Water use efficiency and grain yield of water stressed-field grown triticale as affected by combined application of biochar and biological fertilizer. Arid Land Research and Management, 39(3), 370-389. https://doi.org/10.1080/15324982.2024.2434462
24. Nosheen, S., Ajmal, I., & Song, Y. (2021). Microbes as biofertilizers, a potential approach for sustainable crop production. Sustainability, 13(4): 1868. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041868
25. Rowinska, P., Sypka, M., Białkowska, A. M., Stryjek, M., Nowak, A., Janas, R., Gutarowska, B., & Szulc, J. (2025). Evaluating soil bacteria for the development of new biopreparations with agricultural applications. Applied Sciences, 15, 6400. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126400
26. Salama, H. S. A., & Badry, H. H. (2021). Forage and grain yields of dual-purpose triticale as influenced by the integrated use of Azotobacter chroococcum and mineral nitrogen fertilizer. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 16(2), 1719-1728.
27. Salata, A., Borisova, G., & Maleva, M. (2026). Microbial allies in stress resilience: The role of plant growth-promoting bacteria in crop rhizosphere, endosphere, and phyllosphere. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 32(2): 202-221. DOI: 10.15832/ankutbd.1770195.
28. Spina, A., & Zingale, S. (2023). Health Benefits of Minor Cereals. Sustainable Food Science – A Comprehensive Approach, pp. 16-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823960-5.00009-3
29. Singh, J. S., Pandey, V. C., & Singh, D. P. (2011). Efficient soil microorganisms: A new dimension for sustainable agriculture and environmental development. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 140, 339-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.01.017
30. Şahin, F., Çakmakçi, R., & Kantar, F. (2004). Sugar beet and barley yield in relation to inoculation with N2-fixing and phosphate solubilizing bacteria. Plant and Soil, 265, 123-129.
31. Wong, W. S., Tan, S. N., Ge, L., Chen, X., & Yong, J. W. H. (2015). The Importance of Phytohormones and Microbes in Biofertilizers. In: D. K. Maheshwari (Ed.), Bacterial Metabolites in Sustainable Agroecosystem, Sustainable Development and Biodiversity, 12, pp. 105-158. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-24654-3_6
32. Zenelt, W., Pruciak-Nowak, A., & Krawczyk, K. (2024). Plant growth promotion of crops using phosphate solubilizing bacterial strains derived from insects. Journal of Plant Protection Research, 64(3), 321-335.
33. Zhang, K., Wan, X., Li, C., Xia, X., Lou, Y., Bai, B., Liang, H., & Hu, H. (2025). The effects of the combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers on the annual balance of nitrogen and phosphorus in farmlands. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 35657-35672. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19459-9