EFFECT OF BIOFERTILIZATION AND COMPOST
LEVELS ON PRODUCTIVITY OF SOME FODDER
CROPS UNDER SALINE STRESS
Amal E. Ahmed and Mona M. El-Shazly*
Soil Fertility & Microbiology Dept.
Desert Research Center, Cairo, Egypt.
*E-mail - monaelshazly2011@gmail.com
Key Words: Compost, Biofertilization, Sorghum, Azotobacter
chroococcum , Azospirillum brasilence , Organic matter,
Salinity.
ABSTRACT
This study was carried out to develop a technique for improving the
productivity of some summer fodder crops under salinity stress
condition. Field analysis and estimations were done for two progressive
seasons (1026 and 2017) at South Sinai Reaserch Station, Ras Sudr,
Desert Research Center, to consider the impact of biofertilizer
application and compost rates in enhancing some summer fodder crops.
The utilized biofertilizers were A. chroococcum and Azospirillum
brasilense single and mixed treatments with two compost rates(10 and
20 m3/Fed.).
Analysis of the manure, the soil microbiological properties and
physicochemical analysis of compost showed a highly efficient compost
productivity was obtained with narrow C/N ratio and rich microbial
counts. Soil microbial properties and production of some fodder crops
(Maruit 1 , Black suddan grass and Pearl millet) irrigated with saline
water were measured. Obtained results showed that, there was a
superiority of mixed biofertilization treatments over all individual with
20m3 followed by mixed with 10 m3 compost when compared with all
individual treatments. Increase in compost rate increased significantly all
the studied parameters. A. chroococcum and Azospirillum brasilense
played an energizing role especially with application of compost. Also,
results indicated that, the three studied Sorghum varieties differed
significantly in their responses to biofertilization treatments and organic
matter (compost levels). Highest obtained values of all parameters were
recorded with Maruit-1 followd by pearl millet. Also, mixed treatments
with Azotobacter chroococcum and Azospirillum brasilence recorded the
highest activity to alleviate salt stress compared with single and control.
It can concluded that, organic matter application at 10 m3/fed with mixed
biofertilization treatments improve yield, its components and stimulate
microbial and enzymatic activity in rhizosphere of the studied fodder
crops under salinity stress compared with all the other treatments.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021 205-223
INTRODUCTION
Biofertilizer is a wide term, which includes a diverse category of
bioinoculants such as nitrogen fixers, phosphate solubilizers, phosphate
mobilizers and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Numerous bacterial
species have found as PGPR mainly Azotobactor, Azosprillium, Bacillus,
Pseudomonas etc. The application of these bacterial species as
biofertilizers could be the alternate source of synthetic fertilizers because
these bacterial species have great potential to fix atmospheric nitrogen as
well as to solubilize the phosphorus in the soil. Azotobacter and
Azospirillum genera are free-living bacteria and fix atmospheric nitrogen
in cereal crops without any symbiosis. They fix 20-40 kg ha-1.
Azotobacter sp. also has ability to produce antifungal compounds against
many plant pathogens. Thus, biofertilizers containing beneficial
organisms that are cost effective, pollution free and a perennially
renewable source of plant nutrients, making them ideal partners and
essential supplements to chemical fertilizers (EI-Latief, 2016).
Biofertilizers like Azospirillum may release phytohormones like auxin
which enhance root branching and also root elongation. This would be a
clear advantage for plants in dry areas (Steenhoudt and Vandereyden,
2000). Furthermore, biofertilizers are able to produce other plant
hormones like gibberellins and cytokinins in the case of Azotobacter
(Bhardwai et al., 2014).
Inoculation of PGPR can increase plant uptake from several
nutrients such as Ca, K, Fe, Cu, Mn and Zn. This uptake usually occurs
during acidification of the soil rhizosphere via organic acid production or
via stimulation of proton pump ATP ase (Mantelin and Touraine,
2004).
Soil salinity is an increasing problem in the world and main
obstacle to agricultural productivity especially in areas where irrigation is
necessary. It adversely affects plant growth and development. Adoption
of salt tolerant variety is more important here and so screening of salt
tolerant germplasms is essential (Roy et al., 2018). Salinity is one of the
major abiotic stresses in agriculture worldwide, limiting crop
productivity (Munns and Tester, 2008). Globally, a total land area of
831 million hectares is affected by salinity (Turkan and Demiral, 0229;
Munns, 2005). Salt accumulation is mainly related to a dry climate, salt
rich parent materials of soil formation, insufficient drainage and
irrigation with saline ground water (Almodares, et al., 2008).
206 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021
The adverse physiological effects may be attributed to
unavailability to water, reduction in photosynthesis through loss of
turgidity, impeded nutrient uptake causing deficiency and ion toxicity to
plants (Niu, et al.,0200 ;Munns and Tester, 2008; Netondo et al.,
2004a, 0222b). Salt stress may also impair synthesis of biochemical
substances such as enzymes, sugars and protein (Singh and Chatrath.,
2001). During salinity stress decrease in K+ and Ca2+ and accumulation
of Na+ and Mg2+ ions in both roots and shoots occurs in plant body
(Farooq et al., 2015; Yasmeen et al., 2013). Also, causing reduction in
dry matter accumulation and grain yield (Flowers and Flowers 2005).
Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) is the fourth most important cereal
crop grown in the world. Sorghum is grown on approximately 44 million
hectares in 99 countries. (FAOSTAT, 2013).Sorghum has potential uses
such as: food (grain), feed (grain and biomass), fuel (ethanol production),
fiber paper, fermentation (methane production) and fertilizer utilization
of organic byproducts. Sorghum is a principal source of energy, protein,
vitamins and minerals for millions of the poorest people in the semi arid
regions (Khaton et al., 2016). The protein content of sorghum (11.3%) is
nearly equal and is comparable to that of wheat and maize. Average
starch content of the seeds range from 65to 73% and is relatively rich in
iron, phosphorous and vitamin B-complex (Reddy et al.,2010). From the
microbiological point of view, green manure has two main positive
effects, i.e. it provides nutrient rich in organic carbon for the microbial
biomass, which converts unavailable nutrients in plant residues to ones
available for crops at it enhances biodiversity of soil
microorganisms(Abd El Gawad,2008). Azim, et al., (2018) reported that
the role of compost in salt-affected soils is very vital because the organic
source is ultimate opportunity to improve the physical properties of soils,
which have been deteriorated to the extent that water and air passage
become extremely difficult in such soils .
The main objective of the present study was to examine the effect
of biofertilization and compost levels on the productivity of some fodder
crops under saline stress
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A field experiments were conducted during two successive seasons
at Ras Sudr Research Station, South Sinai Governorate to study the effect
of different rates of compost and different biofertilization treatments,
i.e. Azotobacter chroococcum, Azospirillum brasilensce and the mixture
of them on the productivity of some summer forage crops namely
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021 207
Maruit-1, black Sudan grass and pearl millet under soil and water saline
conditions.
Physical properties and chemical analysis of soil and irrigation
water are presented in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table (1). Some physical and chemical properties of the experimental
soil.
Depth
Cm
pH
EC soil
paste
dS/m
OM CaCO3 Sand Silt Clay CEC
Cmole/
kg soil
Texture
%
0-30 7.73 8.56 2.28 26.9 75.5 12.57 11.93 5.81 LS
30-60 7.96 7.35 1.73 27.4 73.4 15.31 11.29 6.65 LS
Cations and anions in soluble soil (meq/L)
Depth Na + K + Ca +2 Mg +2 CO3
= HCO3
- Cl - SO4
=
0-30 2..0 1.3 23.9 5.. 0 05.2 ...5 00..
30-60 20.52 9.5 00..5 02.09 0 16.55 56.5 23.5
Available nutrients in soil (ppm)
Depth N P K Fe Mn Zn Cu B
0-30 36.8 5.19 48.5 4.26 2.18 1.25 0.57 0.18
30-60 21.5 3.84 52.3 4.64 2.23 1.31 0.66 0.12
Table (2). Some chemical properties of the irrigation water at Ras
Sudr Research Station.
pH
EC
dS/m
Na+ K+ Ca+2 Mg+2 CO3
= HCO3
- Cl- SO4
=
meq/L
7.94 7.85 46.9 2.62 20.5 8.48 0.00 6.3 47.5 24.7
Preparation of Compost:
Preparation of substrate:
Substrates such as plant residues, weeds and grasses should be
chopped. Chopping helps speed up decomposition by increasing the
surface area available for microbial action and providing better aeration.
The harder or wooden the tissues, the smaller they need to be
decomposed rapidly. Woody material should be passed through a grinder.
All existed agricultural wastes were subjected to analysis before
composting for C/N ratio which was as follow:
Sheep manure used as an initiative material had values: O.C: 19.46
%, T.N: 1.4 %, C/N:13.9, O.M ,%...6:moisture 28.7 and PH 7.6
Composting Method:
This method involves digging a pit (360 cm long × 180 cm wide
×90 cm deep) in a shaded area (length can vary according to the volume
of waste materials available). Farm wastes such as vegetable refuse,
weeds, leaves and grasses are spread to a thickness of 15-20 cm. fresh
liquid culture of cellulose decomposing bacteria were activated with
molass (2 liter bacteria 108 cfu/ml+ 1 liter molass and 97 litre water for
each ton of wastes) and added to facilitate and activate decomposing
208 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021
process. Wet animal dung is spread over this layer to a thickness of 5 cm.
Water is sprinkled to moisten the material (50-60 percent of mass). This
procedure is repeated until the whole mass reaches a height of 60 cm
above ground. It is then covered with plastic sheet . In four weeks, the
mass becomes reduced and the heap flattens. The cover plastic is
removed and the entire mass is turned Aerobic decomposition
commences at this stage, Beneficial soil microorganisms was added to
enrich bio-compost with nutrients and other important secretion. Water is
sprinkled to keep the material moist. The compost is ready for use after
four months Russel,1991.
Compost Enrichment:
Farm compost is poor in P content (0.4- 0.8 %).Addition of P
makes the compost more balanced, and supplies nutrient to
microorganisms for their multiplication and faster decomposition. The
addition of P also reduces N losses.
Compost can be enriched by application of calcium ammonium
nitrate (33.3%N) and calcium super phosphate (15.5 % P2 O5 ) were
added in concentrations of 20 Kg / ton and 5 Kg / ton as sources of
nitrogen and phosphorous, respectively.Calcium carbonate was added in
concentration of 20 Kg / ton to neutralize the pH of compost.
Microbial Preparation:
Fresh liquid culture strains of highly efficient for nitrogen fixation,
i.e. Azotobacter chrococcum and Azospirillum brasilense that previously
isolated and identified and were used for seed inoculation, liquid cultures
of Azotobacter chrococcum and Azospirillum brasilense 108 cfu /ml were
applied. The experiment was conducted in split-split plot design, with
three replicates.
Compost was added at two rates (10 and 20 m3/fed), biofertilization
treatments added to soil after germination throughout two weeks after
each cut
Grains were planted at four rows with 20 cm apart. All plots
received 31kg P2O5/fed, as calcium super phosphate, 70 kg N/fed. as
ammonium nitrate (33.5 % N). Samples of ten plants were taken after 55,
110 and 160 days from planting for the 1st, 2nd and 3rdcuts, respectively,
to assessment plant height and fresh yield.
Chemical analysis of soil was carried out to determine total
nitrogen in soil was determined according to Page et al.,(1982),Nitrogen
in leaves was determined according to Bremner and Mulvaney, (1982),
protein by multiplying nitrogen 6.25
Microbiological analysis: Nutrient modified Bunt and Rovira media,
Ashbys and Doberiner media were used for total microbial, phosphate
solubilizing bacteria (PSB) counts, Azotobacter and Azospirillum
densities, respectively. Dehydrogenase activity according to method
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021 209
described by (Casida et al.,1964). Nitrogenase activity was determined
according to (Haahtela et al., 1981).
Statistical analysis: Analysis of variance was calculated according to the
method of Duncan's, multiple range tests at 0.05 level, using MSTAT
computer statistical software according to Russel, (1991).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1.Physicochemical and microbiological analysis of the obtained Compost:
The rapid decomposition can be detected by a pleasant odour, by the
heat produced , by the growth of white fungi on the decomposing organic
material, by a reduction of volume, and by the materials changing colour to
dark brown. As near completion, the temperature drops and finally little or
no heat is produced. The compost is then ready to use. Table (3) showed the
physicochemical and microbiological analysis of resulted compost. It is
clear that all macro and micronutrients, are in the accepted ranges. Both N
content and C/N ratio are very close to the reported values by El-Sersawy et
al.(1995). Microbial examination of the obtained compost revealed the
increase in numbers of beneficial microorganisms like azotobacters,
phosphate dissolving fungi, aerobic cellulose decomposers and total
microbial counts, despite absence of pathogenic microorganisms and
nematodes. These results are in compatible with Indira, and Singh(2014).
The quality of compost can be further improved by secondary
inoculation of Azotobacter chroococcum, and Phosphate dissolving fungi.
These microorganisms, can be sprinkled when the decomposing material is
turned after one month. As a result of this inoculation, the N content of
compost can be increased by up to 2%. In addition to improving N content
and the availability of other plant nutrients, these additions help to reduce
the composting time considerably (Abd ElGawad,2008 ).
Table (3).Physico-chemical and microbiological analysis of the used
compost:
Sample pH C% Total nutrients C/N ratio
N P K Fe Mn Zn
% Ppm
Compost 7.6 28.1 0.83 0.17 0.35 749 71.5 13.1 29.2
Microbiological analysis
Microbiological determinations (C.F.U/g dry matter)
Total microbial counts ×105 230
Azotobacter densities ×103 51
Phosphate dissolving fungi (PDB)×102 23
Cellulose decomposers ×104 54
CO2 evolution 28 (mg CO2/100 g dry soil/24 hr)
2.Effect of Organic Matter Rates, Biofertilization on plant
height,fresh and dry yield of the studied forage crops.
The effect of compost rates (10 and 20m3) application with the studied
three biofertilization treatments on plant height, fresh and dry yield among
the three studied forage crops was presented in Table (4). Results reported
210 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021
that, bacterial inoculation recorded significant increases for all the measured
parameters. Maximum stimulatory effect of the biofertilizers was existed in
plant treated with mixture of both A. chroococcum and A. brasilensce at
20m3 rate of compost. Significant differences were obtained between the
three used fodder crops in all studied traits and were observed by applied
treatments. It would be concluded that the genotypes difference between the
three fodder crops may be due to genetically difference between genotypes
and the difference between genotypes concerning partition of dry matter.
These obtained results of genotypes differences on the studied traits are in
agreement with those obtained by Muchow, (1989), Zerbini, and Thomas,
(2003).
Table (4). Effect of Compost Rates and Biofertilization on plant
height and fresh yield for of the studied fodder crops
under salt stress
Genotypes OM
Biofertilization
Treatments
Plant height (cm) Fresh weight (Ton/fed.)
Dry weight
(Ton/fed.)
Cut1 Cut2 Cut3 Cut1 Cut2 Cut3 Cut1 Cut2 Cut3
Black Sudan
grass
10
Control 025 5. 52 0.05 0.0 0..2 0.31 0.39 0.32
Azotobacter 09. 092 002 0..5 0.50 0.59 0.39 0.47 0.43
Azospirillm 090 00. 000 0.5. 0... 0.22 0.42 0.52 0.48
Mixture 02. 095 095 9.52 4.19 9.9. 0.75 0.91 0.79
20
Control 127 128 123 2.53 2.46 2.39 0.38 0.46 0.42
Azotobacter 209 194 186 5.27 5.14 5.03 0.51 0.64 0.61
Azospirillm 183 182 174 4.91 4.89 4.61 0.53 0.67 0.63
Mixture 219 212 209 ...1 5.59 5.48 0.89 0.96 0.87
Pearl millet
10
Control 029 020 55 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.33 0.45 0.41
Azotobacter 005 00. 000 0.2. 0..0 0.22 0.48 0.55 0.49
Azospirillm 002 002 022 0.5. 0.29 0.95 0.49 0.58 0.56
Mixture 092 099 005 0.02 9.25 9.20 0.88 0.94 0.91
20
Control 118 112 110 1.89 0.83 0.68 0.41 0.49 0.43
Azotobacter 139 135 029 9.59 4.28 4.11 0.69 0.78 0.71
Azospirillm 131 127 121 9.37 3.98 3.80 0.73 0.85 0.77
Mixture 150 141 129 2.52 5.41 ..15 1.02 0.99 0.94
Maruit-1
10
Control 025 029 5. 0.5 0.20 0..2 0.33 0.47 0.45
Azotobacter 092 092 009 0.22 0..5 0.2 0.54 0.62 0.59
Azospirillm 005 005 002 0.0. 0.22 0.20 0.59 0.65 0.63
Mixture 022 09. 00. 9.90 9.50 9..5 0.93 1.08 0.92
20
Control 124 119 113 0.79 0.72 0.63 0.45 0.51 0.47
Azotobacter 169 161 157 9.91 ..64 ..22 0.66 0.79 0.75
Azospirillm 161 156 142 9.87 ..61 ..39 0.68 0.84 0.81
Mixture 188 186 170 2.68 2.22 5.91 1.16 1.23 1.08
L.S.D at 0.05% interaction 2.063 2.129 0.0551
3.Effect of compost rate and biofertilization treatments on yield of
some fodder crops under salt stress
Data in Table (5) clearly showed that the biofertilization treatments
have resulted in increase of grain/panicle and grain yield Ton/fed. It was
clear that there is a gradual increase in yield with the different
biofertilization treatments from single to the mixed treatment. Mixed
biofertilization treatment resulted to the highest significant increase in
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021 211
grain yield of Maruit-1 which recorded 112.8% followed by pearl
millet 94.3% and Black Sudan grass 84.7% of increase in grain yield
over control in descending order at compost level 20m3. Synergistic
effect between biofertilizers in mixed treatment positively affected grain
yield. These results may be attributed to the differences among the
studied forage crops in yield and its components as the differences in
genetically contents of the three forage crops. Maruit-1 may be more
adapted to salinity and drought conditions. So, it is considered a
favorable forage crops under Ras Sudr conditions. These results are in
agreement with those reported by El-Sherbiny, and Abed El- Lateef,
(2009). High yield obtained with compost level 20m3was applied and
with Maruit-1 and the other tested forage crops. There was a significant
effect among biofertilization , compost levels and forage crops on the
studied traits obviously with the mixed biofertilization treatments which
gave the maximum effect on yield of the studied forage crops. The same
trend was obtained by Kim, et. al. (2000),
Table (5). Effect of Compost Rates and Biofertilization on plant
height and fresh yield for of some fodder crops under
salt stress
Genotypes OM
Biofertilization
Treatments
Grain weight
(g/plant)
Grain yield
(Ton/fed.)
Black Sudan
grass
10
Control 29.7 1.31
Azotobacter 40.2 1.86
Azospirillm 44.9 1.91
Mixture 49.5 1.97
20
Control 34.1 1.45
Azotobacter 45.3 2.08
Azospirillm 47.5 2.17
Mixture 54.2 2.42
Pearl millet
10
Control 30.1 1.41
Azotobacter 45.8 2.15
Azospirillm 48.1 2.29
Mixture 56.2 2.41
20
Control 37.3 1.82
Azotobacter 50.8 2.51
Azospirillm 53.2 2.58
Mixture 59.1 2.74
Maruit-1
10
Control 31.1 1.64
Azotobacter 51.6 2.78
Azospirillm 54.7 2.85
Mixture 56 3.06
20
Control 39 2.19
Azotobacter 53.9 3.11
Azospirillm 58 3.25
Mixture 62.1 3.49
L.S.D at 0.05% interaction 1.294 0.269
212 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021
4.Effect of compost rate and biofertilization treatments on total
nitrogen in soil, nitrogen and protein in leaves for some fodder
crops under salt stress
Data presented in Table (6) showed that nitrogen contents in soil at
three cuts, indicated that nitrogen content in soil was significantly
affected by the applied treatments and the three fodder crops. Maruit-1
which gave highest concentration (174ppm), followed by 173 and 170
for pearl millet and Black Sudan grass respectively. These forage
crops may be adapted to drought and salinity conditions. So, it is
considered as a favorable forage crop under Ras Sudr conditions. These
results are in agreement with those represented by Ague and Palmer
(2007).
For biofertilizer applications treatments, data indicated that
inoculation process increased N and protein content in leaves.
Inoculation with A. chroococcum and Azospirillum brasilensce singly or
mixed cause highest N2 fixation compared with control. Thus,
Azotobacter and Azospirillum enriched the soil by nitrogen fixation and
other different activities which increased soil fertility.
Table (6): Effect of organic mtter rate and biofertilization
treatments and micronutrients on total nitrogen in soil,
nitrogen and protein in leaves of the fodder crops.
(Average of two seasons2016 and 2017)
Genotypes OM
Biofertilization
treatments
N in soil(ppm) N in leaves (%) Protein ( % )
Cut1 Cut2 Cut3 Cut1 Cut2 Cut3 Cut1 Cut2 Cut3
Black Sudan
grass
10
Control 005 00. 001 2.51 0.96 2.54 5.7 6.0 5.9
Azotobacter 022 030 027 0.98 0.12 0.0. 6.1 7.0 6.6
Azospirillm 003 095 005 2.54 0.06 0.93 5.9 6.6 5.8
Mixture 090 045 040 0.02 0.18 0.11 7.0 7.4 6.9
20
Control 126 138 130 1.071 1.113 1.052 6.7 7.0 6.6
Azotobacter 147 051 046 1.281 1.307 1.3755 8.0 8.2 8.6
Azospirillm 148 053 147 1.239 1.386 1.3335 7.7 8.7 8.3
Mixture 152 070 061 1.3545 1.449 1.3965 8.5 9.1 8.7
Pearl millet
10
Control 005 009 003 2.54 1.02 2.57 5.9 6.4 6.1
Azotobacter 00. 044 035 1.02 0.28 0.2. 6.4 8.0 7.8
Azospirillm 007 04. 040 2.52 0.25 1.18 5.9 7.8 7.4
Mixture 094 050 045 0.06 0.36 0.32 7.3 8.5 8.3
20
Control 126.4 140.8 137 1.078 1.167 1.096 6.7 7.3 6.9
Azotobacter 148.3 156.5 152.9 1.353 1.454 1.399 8.5 9.1 8.7
Azospirillm 149.1 155.1 147.4 1.265 1.221 1.155 7.9 7.6 7.2
Mixture 152.9 173.8 166.1 1.408 1.508 1.464 8.8 9.425 9.15
Maruit-1
10
Control 002 029 005 2.54 1.08 2.58 5.9 6.8 6.1
Azotobacter 005 04. 032 0.2. 0.30 0.26 6.6 8.3 7.9
Azospirillm 008 051 04. 2.55 0.2. 0.21 6.1 8.0 7.6
Mixture 098 052 049 0.07 0.39 0.3 7.3 8.7 8.1
20
Control 130 142.6 139.5 0.12 0.29 0.24 7.0 8.1 7.75
Azotobacter 149.7 158.3 155.2 0.37 0.49 0.44 8.6 9.3 9
Azospirillm 150.6 159.1 154.8 0.09 0.35 0.29 8.1 8.4 8.1
Mixture 157 174.3 169.9 0.41 0.52 0.28 8.8 9.5 9.3
L.S.D at 0.05% 0.988 1.03 0.711
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021 213
In the present investigation a mixed inoculation of different forage
crops with A. chroococcum and Azospirillum enhanced the growth of
three forage crops and increased the soil fertility as reflected by soil
mineral contents. This result is in compatible with the findings of Ahmed
and El-Shazly (2018).
5-Effect of compost rate and biofertilization treatments on Na+ and
K+ in the studied fodder crops.
Organic matter rates with biofertilization treatments showed a
significant effect on the concentration of Na+ in roots for the studied
different forage crops. Data in (Table 7) indicated that the content of Na+
was strongly affected by the different biofertilization treatments and two
organic matter rates. The effect of biofertilization with Azotobacter,
Azospirillum and mixed treatment decreased significantly the
accumulation of Na+. While K concentration took the opposite trend.
Generally, concentration of K+ decreased at third cut. Inoculation with
Azotobacter and Azospirillum allowed a better accumulation of Na+. The
effect of salt stress increased the absorption of Na+, whereas the
absorption of K+ decreased in the roots for three forage crops tested.
Bhivare and Nimbalkar (1984) found that reducing the amount of K+
and increased the content of Na+ could be attributed to the effect of
competition between Na+ and K+ on the sites of absorption in the plant.
6-Effect of compost rate and biofertilization treatments on proline
content in three fodder crops under salt stress
Proline is an important biochemical indicator, which is considered
as a major osmoregulator in plants under various stresses and very much
sought after compatible osmolyte, which help plants to counteract and
recovery from salt stress (Kumar et. al., 2010). There was a steep
increase in proline content in the different genotypes with different
biofertilization treatments as shown in Table (7). Maximum proline
content recorded with biofertilizer application especially Azospirllum
brasilence. Although Azospirillum was directly related to its ability to
fix N2, it also evidenced the multiple capabilities these bacteria have. As
well as having the potential to fix N2, they can produce siderophores,
bacteriocins, and plant growth hormones (Bashan & de Bashan, (2010)
and Jain et. al., (2010). They can also increase ion absorption (e.g., K+
and NO3
-) to avoid plant hydric stress, and modify soil redox potential
(Bagheri, (2011); Bashan, et. al., (2004); Hungria et. al., (2010) and
Pidello, (2011).
214 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021
Table (7). Effect of compost rate and biofertilization treatments on
Na+ , K+ and proline content in the leaves of the studied
fodder crops.
Genotypes OM
Biofertilization
treatments
Na(mg/g dw) K(mg/g dw) Proline (mg/g fw)
Cut1 Cut2 Cut3 Cut1 Cut2 Cut3 Cut1 Cut2 Cut3
Black Sudan
grass
10
Control 36.6 40.1 42.6 3.1 3.7 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.2
Azotobacter 35.6 38.3 40 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.2
Azospirillm 33.0 37.4 39.1 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.3 4.33 4.3
Mixture 32.1 36.5 37.4 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.3
20
Control 43.5 46.6 51.94 3.4 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.7 3.5
Azotobacter 42.4 44.5 48.8 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.9 5.0 4.8
Azospirillm 39.2 43.5 47.7 5.0 5.3 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.9
Mixture 38.2 42.4 45.6 5.1 5.3 4.9 5.1 5.3 4.9
Pearl millet
10
Control 39 52.7 57.0 3.3 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.3
Azotobacter 42.1 48.2 53.0 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.3
Azospirillm 45.6 53.2 49.4 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.95 5.1 5.4
Mixture 39.8 45.6 46.5 4.9 5.0 4.6 5.04 5.3 5.6
20
Control 40.0 54.2 58.71 3.6 4.2 3.9 4.3 4.1 4.1
Azotobacter 43.4 49.7 54.59 4.8 5.0 4.7 5.8 5.6 5.5
Azospirillm 47.5 55.4 51.5 4.6 4.8 4.7 6.04 5.72 5.6
Mixture 41.4 47.5 48.41 5.0 5.4 4.9 6.1 5.9 5.8
Maruit-1
10
Control 39.7 40.7 42.6 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.4
Azotobacter 37 38.8 41.6 5.2 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.2 5.5
Azospirillm 34.7 39.8 40.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.1 5.3 5.6
Mixture 34.7 36.9 38.7 5.7 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.5 5.8
20
Control 36.4 38.3 41.4 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.2
Azotobacter 32.3 35.3 41.4 5.6 5.5 5.4 6.0 5.8 5.7
Azospirillm 35.1 37.2 40.4 5.7 5.7 5.7 6.2 5.9 5.8
Mixture 31.1 33.2 38.3 6.1 5.8 5.8 6.3 6.1 6.02
L.S.D at 0.05% 0.059 0.182 0.0175
7. Effect of compost levelsand biofertilization on soil microbial
activity in rhizosphere of the studied forage crops.
7.1. Total microbial counts: Data presented in Table (8) showed that, the
microbial counts in rhizosphere for the studied forage crops varied
greatly with different treatments. The initial total microbial counts in
soil before cultivation were 47×105 cfu/g dry soil. Counts were tended
to increase with different biofertilization treatments either in single or
mixed application. The highest mean counts were associated with the
organic matter 20m3 and mixed biofertilizer application being
157.5×105 cfu. /g dry soil. However, slight differences in total microbial
counts with different forage crops. Maruit 1 exhibited the highest figure
for total microbial counts which indicated that, Maruit 1 is well adapted
to different environmental stress and highly response to biofertilization
treatments application. The enhancement in microbial activity is good
parameter for soil improvement indices. Plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria (PGPR) like Azotobacter and Azospirillum produce
growth promoting substance which enhance plant growth proliferation,
lateral roots and root hairs which increase nutrient absorbing surface
(Metin et. al.,2014).
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021 215
Table (8).Effect of organic matter rates, biofertilization treatments on microbial determinations at
rhizosphere area of the studied forage crops. (Average of two seasons 2016 and 2017)
Genotypes
OM
(m3)
Biofertilization
treatments
Total microbial counts
(×105cfu/g dry soil)
Azotobacter densities
(×103cells/g dry soil)
Azospirillum counts
(×103cellsdry soil)
Cut1 Cut2 Cut3 Cut1 Cut2 Cut3 Cut1 Cut2 Cut3
Black Sudan
grass
10
Control .. 55 50 22 25 22 0. 90 05
Azotobacter 25 52 .2 25 20 .. 90 92 92
Azospirillm 20 50 .0 2. .. 25 95 25 2.
Mixture 50 005 55 .. 29 .8 29 25 22
20
Control 68 82.6 74.5 45.9 59.2 53 31.6 36.7 34.7
Azotobacter 84 120.4 109.1 60.2 72.4 66.3 35.7 39.8 42.8
Azospirillm 75.6 114.2 107.1 51 64.3 62.2 43.9 57.1 49
Mixture 96.9 131.6 114.2 63.2 74.5 65.3 51 60.2 52
Pearl
Millet
10
Control 25 5. 50 .9 22 52 95 22 95
Azotobacter 52 029 52 25 54 5. 2. .2 20
Azospirillm 25 5. 50 20 68 22 .5 22 .5
Mixture .. 002 5. 59 79 .0 20 25 29
20
Control 68.6 91.14 78.4 59.8 82.3 78.4 46.2 52.5 50.4
Azotobacter 86.3 146 134.3 74.2 108.2 102.9 51.5 59.9 55.7
Azospirillm 79.4 140.1 139.2 71.5 100.3 92.6 65.1 74.6 70.4
Mixture 100 154.8 146 90.3 118.7 110.3 68.3 79.8 75.6
Maruit-1
10
Control 2. 58 50 .3 26 .5 20 25 2.
Azotobacter .5 107 58 28 52 79 28 .5 ..
Azospirillm .2 59 93 65 25 73 .5 52 22
Mixture 002 005 000 75 89 86 20 5. 50
20
Control 81.9 98.7 94.5 62 82.9 78.6 45.1 52.9 50
Azotobacter 121.8 153.3 136.5 75.6 105.8 96.1 51.9 59.8 57.8
Azospirillm 107.1 144.8 128.1 73.5 101.9 88.2 62.7 74.5 71.5
Mixture 146 157.5 151.2 91.2 123.5 110.7 65.7 80.4 78.4
L.S.D.at 0.05% 0..95 2.0.2 2.920
216 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021
7.2. Azotobacter densities: Inoculation with heavy suspension of
Azotobacter led to a rather pronounced increase in densities recorded
at the 1st and 2nd cuts. The effect diminished with the prolongation of
plant growth period. The lowest densities of Azotobacter (Table 8)
were recorded at rate 10m3 organic matter without biofertilization
treatments(Control) . Slight difference in Azotobacter densities
recorded with different forage crops; while Maruit 1 exhibited the
highest value of Azotobacter densities. The promoting effect due to
application of A. chroococcum not only due to the nitrogen fixation
but also to the production of plant growth promoting substances,
production of amino acids, organic acids, vitamins and antimicrobial
substances as well which increase soil fertility, microbial community
and plant growth (Singh et. al. 2013).
7.3. Azospirillum densities: data in Table (8) showed the estimation of
Azospirillum densities in rhizosphere area of the studied forage
crops, Azospirillum densities tended to increase at the 1st and 2nd
cuts, and then declined toward the third cut. Also for the organic
matter addition 20m3 and mixed biofertilization treatments recorded
better values . Biofertilization with Azospirillum increased its
densities in single and mixed treatment compared with the control
treatment. These results agreed with that obtained by Abd El Gawad
and Omar, (2014).
7.4. Enzymatic activities: Measurements of enzymatic activities in soil
samples are critical index of soil fertility because enzymes play an
important role in nutrient cycles (Anwesha et. al., 2012), data in
Table (9) showed that the determination of enzymatic activity in
rhizosphere area of the studied forage crops plants epresented the
followings:
Dehydrogenase enzyme: Dehydrogenase activity (DHA) represents the
energy transfer, therefore, it is considered as an index of overall
microbial activity in the soil. Represented data in table 9 recorded that
organic matter rates wihout biofertilizer application recorded lower
values of DHA activity compared with biofertilization treatments and
addition of 20m3organic matter. Interaction treatment of organic matter
and biofertilization recorded the highest DHA activity. This may be due
to that A.chroococcum and A.brasilence played an important role as plant
growth promoting rhizobacteria via N2 fixation (Muthukumar and
Udaiyan2006). This might led to accumulate available nutrients and
stimulate the microorganisms in soil rhizosphere.
Nitrogenase activity: Nitrogenase activity in soil samples increased
with different biofertilization treatments. The highest mean values of
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021 217
nitrogenase enzyme was recorded with the mixed biofertilization
treatments with addition of 20m3organic matter. Many investigators
demonstrated the positive effect of dual inoculation with N2-fixer on N2-
ase activity (El- Komy, 2005).
Table (9): Effect of Organic Matter rates and Biofertilization
treatments on Enzymatic activities at rhizosphere area
for the studied forage crops. (Average of two seasons
2016 and 2017)
Genotypes
OM
(m3)
Biofertilization
Treatments
Dehydrogenase
μlDHA/g dry soil
Nitrogenase
μMC2H4kg/h
Black Sudan grass
10
Control 2... 0.25
Azotobacter 2.50 2.58
Azospirillm 2.5. 2.66
Mixture 2.5. 2.89
20
Control 2.69 2.27
Azotobacter 1.38 2.88
Azospirillm 1.22 2.94
Mixture 0.53 1.02
Pearl
Millet
10
Control 0.09 0.27
Azotobacter 0.0. 0.64
Azospirillm 0.09 0.53
Mixture 0.22 0.71
20
Control 1.41 0.59
Azotobacter 0..8 1.06
Azospirillm 1.46 1.19
Mixture 1.82 1.28
Maruit-1
Control 0.9. 2.38
Azotobacter 0.25 0.94
Azospirillm 0..9 1.24
Mixture 0.02 1.36
Control 0..0 2.48
Azotobacter 0..5 0.35
Azospirillm 0... 0.41
Mixture 0.05 1.46
L.S.D at 0.05% 0.2883 0.016
REFERENCES
Abd El Gawad, A. M. (2008). Study the induction effect of Azospirillum
inoculation on the formation of Para nodules on gramineae.
Annals of Agric. Sci, Ain Shams Univ., Cairo, 53 (1): 91-103.
Abd El-Gawad, A.M. and S.A. Omar(2014) Effect of Biofertilization
on the productivity of some Forage crops under water stress
conditions. Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 29(2):55-80.
Ague, R. C. and G. H. Palmer (2007). Effect of mashing procedures on
some sorghum varieties germinated at different temperatures. J.
Sc. Agri., London Swipe, 32 (2): 147-158.
Ahmed Amal E. and Mona M. El-Shazly (2018).Using of Bio and
Micronutrients Fertilization on improving Productivity of some
218 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021
Summer Fodder Crops at Ras Sudr Area.1st International
Scientific Conference" Agriculture and Futuristic Challenges"
Fac. of Agric.-Cairo, Al-Azhar Univ, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt.
April 10th -12th , 2018,Vol.1(11),pp:585-598.
Almodares, A. ; M.R. Hadi and B. Dosti (2008). The effects of salt
stress on growth parameters and carbohydrates contents in sweet
sorghum. Res. J. Environ. Sci., 2(4): 298-304.
Azim, K. ; B. Soudi ; S. Boukhari ; C. Perissol ; S. Roussos and I.T.
Alami (2018). Composting parameters and compost quality: a
literature review. Organic agriculture, 8(2): 141-158.
Bagheri, A.R. (2011). Effect of salinity and inoculation with
Azospirillum on carbohydrate production, nitrogen status and
yield of barley. African J. of Biotechnology, 10 (45): 9089-
9096.
Bashan, Y. and L.E. de-Bashan (2010). How the plant growthpromoting
bacterium Azospirillum promotes plant growth a
critical assessment. Adv. Agron., 108: 77–136.
Bashan, Y.; G. Holguin and L.E. de-Bashan (2004). Azospirillum–
plant relationships: physiological, molecular, agricultural, and
environmental advances (1997–2003).Can. J. Microbial., 50:
521–577.
Bhardwaj, D. ; M.W. Ansari and R.K. Sahoo and N.Tuteja (2014)
Biofertilizers function as key player in sustainable agriculture by
improving soil fertility, plant tolerance and crop
productivity. Microbial Cell Fact, 13 (66):1-10.
Bhivare, V.N. and J.D. Nimbalkar (1984). Salt stress effects on growth
and mineral nutrition of French beans. Plant and Soil, 80: 91-98.
Bremner, J.M. and C.S. Mulvaney (1982). Nitrogen-Total. In: A. L. Page,
R. H. Miller (Eds.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed.
Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI, pp: 595-624.
Casida, L.E. ; D.A. Klein and T. Santoro (1964).Soil dehydrogenase
activity. Soil Sci., 98: 371-378.
Ei-Lattief, E. A. (2016). Use of Azospirillum and Azobacter bacteria as
biofertilizers in cereal crops: A review. International Journal of
Research in Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJREAS), 6(7):
36-44.
El-Komy, H.M.A. (2005). Coimmobilization of Azospirillum lipoferum
and Bacillus megaterium for successful phosphorus and
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021 219
nitrogen nutrition of wheat plants. Food Technol. Biotechnol.,
43 (1): 19-27.
El-Sersawy, M.M. ; E.A. Bakhoum and N.N. Michail (1995). The role
of organic manuring in ameliorating soil properties and wheat
production of Wadi Sudr, South Sinai Egypt J. Appl. Sci., 10
(8): 602-622.
El-Sherbiny, W.A. and A.A. Abed El- Lateef (2009). Effect of
Irrigation Intervals and Organic Fertilization on Soil Physical
Properties and Sorghum Growth in Wadi Sudr Area, Sinai,
Egypt. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 5 (12): 2553-2562
FAOSTATE, (2013). C. F. http//www.faoorg/faostat
Farooq, M. ; M. Hussain ; A. Wakeel and K.H. Siddique (2015). Salt
stress in maize: effects, resistance mechanisms, and
management. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 35(2): 461-481.
Flowers, T.J. and S.A. Flowers (2005). Why does salinity pose such a
difficult problem for plant breeders? Agric Water Manag,
78:15–24.
Haahtela, K. ; T. Wartiovaara and V. Sundman (1981). Rootassociated
N2 fixation (acetylene reduction) by
Enterobacteriaceae and Azospirillum strains in cold- climate
spodsols. Appl Environ. Microbiol, 41: 203-206.
Hungria, M.; R.J.Campo ; E.M. Souza and F.O. Pedrosa (2010).
Inoculation with selected strains of Azospirillum brasilense and
A. lipoferum improves yields of maize and wheat in Brazil.
Plant & Soil, 331 (1-2): 413-424.
Indira, S. and S.J. Singh (2014): Effect of vermicompost and bio
fertilizer on yield and quality of rabi onion (Allium cepa L) cv.
puna red. – Agric. Sci. Digest., 34(2): 144-146.
Jain, V.; S. Khetrapal ; S. Aravind and S.P. Saikia (2010). Enhanced
levels of soil nitrogen and endogenous phytohormones in maize
(Zea maize L.) inoculated with Azospirillum brasilense. . Indian
Journal of Plant Physiology, 15 (2): 0019-5502.
Khaton, M.A. ; A. Sagar ; J.E. Tajkia ; M.S. Islam ; M.S. Mahmud
and A.K.M.Z. Hossain (2016). Effect of moisture stress on
morphological and yield attributes of four sorghum
varieties. Progressive Agriculture, 27(3): 265-271.
Kim, J.G.; M.S. Han and H.J. Han (2000). Studies on growth
characteristics and dry matter accumulation of millet and
220 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021
sorghum varieties. Fourth Asian crop Sci., Conf., Seoul, Korea,
pp: 485-497.
Kumar, V. ; V. Shriram ; P.B. KaviKishor ; N. Jawali and M.G.
Shitole (2010) Enhanced proline accumulation and salt stress
tolerance of transgenic indica rice by over expressing
P5CSF129A gene. Plant Biotech Rep., 4: 37-48.
Mantelin, S. and B. Touraine (2004). Plant growth‐promoting bacteria
and nitrate availability: impacts on root development and nitrate
uptake. Journal of experimental Botany, 55(394): 27-34.
Metin, T.; E. Melek ; Y. Ertan ; G. Adem ; K. Kenan ; K. Recep and
D. Atilla (2014). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria
improved growth, nutrient,and hormone content of cabbage
(Brassica oleracea) seedlings. Turk J Agric For., 38: 62-69.
Muchow, R. (1989). Comparative productivity of maize, sorghum and
pearl millet in a semi arid tropical environment. II. Effect of
water deficit. Field Crops Res., 20: 207-219.
Munns, R. (2005). Genes and salt tolerance: bringing them
together. New phytologist, 167(3): 645-663.
Munns, R. and M. Tester (2008). Mechanisms of salinity
tolerance. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., 59, 651-681.
Muthukumar, T. and K. Udaiyan (2006). Growth of nursery-grown
Bamboo inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant
growth promoting rhizobacteria in two tropical soil types with
and without fertilizer application. New Forests, 31(3):469-485.
Netondo, G.W. ; J.C. Onyango and E. Beck (2004). Sorghum and
salinity: I. Response of growth, water relations, and ion
accumulation to NaCl salinity. Crop science, 44(3): 797-805.
Niu, G. ; W. Xu ; D. Rodriguez and Y. Sun (2012). Growth and
physiological responses of maize and sorghum genotypes to salt
stress. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2012.
Page, A.L.; R.H. Miller and D.R. Keeney (1982). Methods of Soil
Analysis. 2nd Ed, American Society of Agronomy, Madison,
WI., USA.
Pidello, A. (2011). Ecología Microbiana- Química redox. Corpus,
Rosario, Argentina, 144 pp.
Reddy, B.V. ; A. Ashok Kumar and P. Sanjana Reddy (2010). Recent
advances in sorghum improvement research at
ICRISAT. Kasetsart Journal (Natural Science), 44: 499-506.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021 221
Roy, R.C. ; A. Sagar ; J.E. Tajkia ; M.A. Razzak and A.Z. Hossain
(2018). Effect of salt stress on growth of sorghum germplasms
at vegetative stage. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural
University, 16(1): 67-72.
Russel, D.F. (1991). MSTAT C, Director. Crop and Soil Sciences Dept.
Michigan State Univ. U.S.A.
Singh, K.N. and R. Chatrath (2001). Salinity tolerance. In: Reynolds,
M.P.,Monasterio, J.I.O., McNab, A. (Eds.), Application of
Physiology in Wheat Breeding. CIMMYT, Mexico, DF, pp.
101–110.
Singh, N. K.; F.K. Chaudhary and D.B. Patel (2013). Effectiveness of
Azotobacter bio-inoculant’s for wheat grown under dry land
condition. Journal of Environmental Biology., 34: 927-932
Steenhoudt, O., and Vandereyden, J. (2000). Azospirillum, free-living
nitrogen fixing bacterium closely associated with grasses:
genetic, biochemical and ecological aspects. FEMS Microbiol.
Rev. 24, 487–506. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2000.tb00552.x
Türkan, I. and T. Demiral (2009). Recent developments in
understanding salinity tolerance. Environmental and
Experimental Botany, 67(1): 2-9.
Yasmeen, A. ; S.M.A. Basra ; M. Farooq ; H. Rehman ; N. Hussain
and H.R. Athar (2013) Exogenous application of moringa leaf
extract modulates the antioxidant enzyme system to improve
wheat performance under saline conditions. Plant Growth
Regul., 69:225–233.
Zerbini, E. and D. Thomas (2003). Opportunities for improvement of
nutritive value in Sorghum and Pearl millet residues in South
Asia through genetic enhancement. Field Crop Res., 84: 3-15.
استخدام التسميد العضوى و الحيوى و العناصر الصغرى على تحسين انتاجية
بعض محاصيل الاعلاف الصيفية بمنطقة أ رس سدر
امال السيد احمد و منى مرسى الشاذلى
قسم خصوبة وميکروبيولوجيا- الا ا رضى مرکز بحوث الصح ا رء
6102 بمحطتتة الرجتتارز الز ا رايتتة الراب تتة , أجريتتت رج ربتتة حقميتتة ختت موستتمى 6102
لمرکز بحوث الصح ا رء بمدينة أ رس سدر محافظة جنوز سيناء وذلت لد ا رستة رتر ير مسترويي مت
المتتتتادو ال ضتتتوية) 01 و 61 م 3 لمفتتتتدا و م تتتتام ت الرستتتتميد الحيتتتو بکرريتتتتا الازوروبتتتتاکرر
والازوستبيريممم )بکرريتا م برتت لمنيرتروجي کم تام ت منفتتردو وکتذل م اممتة مکتررکة لکت من متتا
222 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021
امتتتى نمتتتو وانراجيتتتة لتتتب محاصتتتي ال متتتة الصتتتيفية صتتتنة مريتتوط- 0, والصتتتنة حکيکتتتة
السودا السوداء, والدخ رحت ظتروة ار ا رضتى الجيريتة و المرتر رو بالمموحتة بمنطقتة أ رس ستدر
جنوز سيناء.
وقد اظ رت النرائج مايمى:
- رباينتت الاصتناة المخرمفتتة رحتتت الد ا رستتة م نويتتا فتتى ستتموک ا واسترجابر ا لرتتر ير الم تتام ت
المخرمفة م الرسميد الحيو وم دلات المادو ال ضوية
- أظ تترت الم تتام ت المخرمطتتة متت بکرريتتا ارزوروبتتاکرر وارزوستتبيريممم أفضتت النرتتائج مقارنتتة
بم اممة الکنررو والم ام ت المنفردو لک من ما لجميع الصفات رحت الد ا رسة رحت ظتروة
الاج اد المائى,
- کا الصنة مريوط - 0 م افض الر ا رکيز الو ا ر ية لصفات محصو ال مة الغ
- أظ ترت الم تام ت المخرمفتة مت الرستميد الحيتو دو ا ر ايجابيتا فتى رحستي انراجيتة اصتناة
ال متة المخرمفتة رحتت الد ا رستة وکانتت الم اممتة المخرمطتة بمخمتوط مت بکرريتا ار زوروبتاکرر
وارزوسبيريممم م أفض الم ام ت مقارنت بالم ام ت المنفردو والکنررو ,
- أدت م ام ت الرسميد الحيو الى زيادو النکاط الميکروبتى والانزيمتى فتى الرربتة وزيتادو نستبة
محرو النيرتروجي ممتا يکتير التى دورلاتا الايجتابى فتى زيتادو رحمت المحاصتي رحتت ظتروة
الاج ادات البيئية المخرمفة.
روصتى الد ا رستة باسترخدام الم اممتة المخرمطتة لکت مت بکرريتا ارزوروبتاکرر وارزوستبيريممم
مع مسرو 61 م 3 مادو اضوية وذلت لرحستي انراجيتة ال متة الغت مت الستورجم مريتوط - 0
المنرخز بمرکز بحوث الصح ا رء رحت ظروة الا ا رضى المرر رو بالمموحة والجفاة والر بالميتا
المالحة بمنطقة أ رس سدر والمنتاط المما متة بجنتوز ستيناء والررکيتز امتى ز ا راتة لاتذ الاصتناة
نظ ا ر لزيادو رحمم ا لظروة الإج اد المائى والمموحة واسرجابر ا لمرسميد الحيو .
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (7-8) 2021 223
View on SCiNiTO
