Research Article

Effects of PGPR Bacteria Applications on Soil Properties, Plant Growth and Yield Values in Karaerik and Narince Grape Varieties

Volume: 4 Number: 2 December 30, 2023
EN

Effects of PGPR Bacteria Applications on Soil Properties, Plant Growth and Yield Values in Karaerik and Narince Grape Varieties

Abstract

Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) are beneficial bacteria that promote plant growth by adhering to the root surfaces in the rhizosphere region of plants. In addition to improving the physical properties of soils, these bacteria increase plant growth and yield by positively affecting nitrogen fixation, phosphorus solubility, water and nutrient uptake of plants. In this study, the effects of bacteria applications on the vegetative development and yield levels of Karaerik and Narince grape varieties, which are important table varieties of Erzincan and Tokat regions, grown in greenhouses in Erzurum central conditions were investigated. In the study, 4 different bacterial combinations (Pseudomonas chlororaphis + Paenibacillus pabuli + Bacillus simplex + Pseudomonas fluorescens) that promote plant growth were applied to the plant root zone as a solution. In the study, the effects of PGPR applications on the vegetative growth of vines, some pomological characteristics, yield levels, macronutrient contents of leaves and physical and chemical properties of greenhouse soils were determined. While aggregate stability and porosity values of PGPR treated soils increased, water permeability and bulk density values decreased. Bacterial applications in both grape varieties showed a positive effect on shoot length, shoot diameter, number of nodes, berry width, berry length, cluster width, cluster length, number of seeds, number of clusters, cluster weight, number of berries, berry weight, total yield and macronutrient content of leaves. According to the control group, PGPR applied soils; organic matter content increased by 76.2%, aggregate stability values increased by 49.5% and porosity by 5.5%, while water permeability decreased by 18.3% and bulk density by 3.9%. Depending on the application, it was determined that the yield increased by 42.8% in Karaerik grape variety and 35.7% in Narince grape variety.

Keywords

Aggregate stability , PGPR , Soil physics , Vine , Yield

References

  1. Abdel Aal, G. Z., Atekwana, E. A., & Atekwana, E. A. (2010). Effect of bioclogging in porous media on complex conductivity signatures. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 115(G3), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JG001159
  2. Altın, N., & Bora, T. (2005). Bitki gelişimini uyaran kök bakterilerinin genel özellikleri ve etkileri. Anadolu Ege Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(2), 87-103. (In Turkish)
  3. Annapurna, K., Ramadoss, D., Vithal, L., Bose, P., & Sajad, A. (2011). PGPR bioinoculants for ameliorating biotic and abiotic stresses in crop production. 2nd Asian PGPR Conference. Beijing.
  4. Badalucco, L., & Kuikman, P. J. (2001). Mineralization and immobilization in the rhizosphere. In R. Pinton, Z. Varanini & P. Nannipieri (Eds.), The Rhizosphere; biochemistry and organic substances at the soil-plant interface (pp. 159-196). CRC Press.
  5. Berg, G., & Smalla, K. (2009). Plant species and soil type cooperatively shape the structure and function of microbial communities in the rhizosphere. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 68(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2009.00654.x
  6. Blake, G. R., & Hartge, K. H. (1986). Bulk density. In A. Klute (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis, Part 1 -Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd Edition, Agronomy Monographs 9, American Society of Agronomy-Soil Science Society of America (pp. 363-382). Madison.
  7. Bronick, C. J., & Lal, R. (2005). Soil structure and management: A review. Geoderma, 124(1-2), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.03.005
  8. Cakmakci, 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
  9. Denis, A. A., & Caron, J. (1998). Plant-induced changes in soil structure: Processes and feedback. In N. Van Breemen (Ed.), Developments in biogeochemistry (pp. 55-72). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2691-7_3
  10. Díaz‐Zorita, M., Perfect, E., & Grove, J.H. (2002). Disruptive methods for assessing soil structure. Soil and Tillage Research, 64(1-2), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(01)00254-9