Journal of Agricultural Science and Food Research
Open Access

Evaluation of Phosphorus Rates and Rhizobial Strain on Haricot Bean (Phaseolus Vulgaris l.) in Western Amhara

Beamlaku Alemayehu^1*, Tadele Amare¹ and Kindu Gashu^{2 *}Correspondence: Beamlaku Alemayehu, Department of Agriculture, Adet Agricultural Research Center, Post box 08, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

Haricot bean or common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is an herbaceous annual crop grown worldwide for its edible bean. It is a source of dietary protein (22% with high lysine content) and cash income (2^nd important grain legume as a cash crop in Eth). Its crop residues serve as feed for livestock and also form a good basis for compost manure and used in intercropping systems with maize and tree seedlings [1]. The 2013/14 national average yield of haricot bean in Ethiopia was about14 q ha–1 (MoA, 2014) but yield ranges from 25–30 q ha^–1 at research sites using improved varieties [2,3]. The use of fertilizers is considered to be one of the most important factors to increase crop yield per unit area basis. Nutrient requirements of pulse crops are fulfilled by soil, rhizobia and chemical fertilizers [4]. The low yield of haricot bean is associated with soil acidity which reduces the availability of Phosphorus (P), basic cations and affects the activities of soil microbes. P is among the principal nutrient elements needed for the growth of legumes [5]. A good supply of P is associated with: increased root growth, early maturity of crops, and the formation of root nodules, N₂ fixation and increased yield [6,7]. Responses for P are dependent on residual levels in the soil. Without enough P in the soil, a legume can’t fix N₂ [8,9]. “Ethiopian soils harbor gnomically diverse rhizobia not related to reference species” [10]. About 60%-80% N in legumes comes from N₂ fixation [11,12]. Small starter doses of N can be beneficial to plant development, nodulation and N₂ fixation [13]. Starter N provides a benefit with very low soil N levels. It is only recommended when soil test N levels are below 20 kg ha^-1 in the 0-12 inch soil. N-fixation in root nodules is sensitive to extremes of pH: nodulation and N-fixation are reduced where pH<5.5 and>8.0 or with excessive salinity [14,15]. Rhizobia needed by common bean for N₂ fixation do not always occur in the soil naturally. Seed inoculation fills this gap and ensures N₂ fixation resulting in a good yield (20-40 q ha^-1) with very little cost. Inoculation is the practice of applying the inoculant to the seed. It is cheap insurance to maximize nodulation and to increase N₂ fixation leading to significant improvement of legume yield [16,17]. Nitrogen fixation requires more P than does plant growth. Even though common bean production is expanding across years in western Amhara (personal observation), there is no recommended fertilizer rate for its production. The national blanket recommendation used so far is 100 kg ha^-1 DAP (46% P₂O₅ or 20% P). Therefore, this research was carried out to determine the optimum rate of phosphorus fertilizer for haricot bean production in western Amhara.

Materials and Methods

Description of the study sites

The study was conducted in Gonji Qolela, Yilmana Densa, and Bahir Dar Zuria districts of northwestern Ethiopia on farmer’s field in 2015, 2016, and 2017 in the main cropping season under rainfed conditions.

The experiment was comprises five levels of phosphorus with and without HB 429 rhahizobial strain (11 treatments) namely, control, 0 P₂O₅, 23 P₂O₅, 46 P2O5, 69 P₂O₅, 92 P₂O₅, 0 P₂O₅+ HB 429, 23 P₂O₅ + HB 429, 46 P₂O₅ + HB 429, 69 P₂O₅ + HB 429, and 92 P₂O5 + HB 429. Phosphorus was applied in the form of TSP (0-46-0) side-banded with the seed. One nationally recommended indigenous strain of Mesorhizobium spp. (HB-429), which is under commercial use, was used. The source of the inoculant was Menagesha Biotech PLC. 18 Kg ha^-1 N was used as a starter for all plots. Only one improved variety Awash Melka which is white and an exportable (cunning type) commodity was used as a test crop. Seeds were soaked in lukewarm water for about 30 minutes until the seed coat gets wrinkled, basking and draining under the shade, palm-testing when many seeds are sticky, dressing the seeds with the inoculant, sown and covered with soil as soon as possible [18,19]. The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications. The spacing was 1.5 m between replications and 0.5 m between plots with 4 m wide 3 m long plot size. The inter- row spacing was 40 cm and inter-plant 10 cm. There were ten rows and eight net harvestable rows within a plot. The100 kg ha^-1 seed rate was used. Other agronomic practices were applied as per recommendations.

Soil sampling, preparation and analysis

Before planting, representative soil samples were collected from a depth of 0-20 cm at representative points of the experimental field. The samples were thoroughly mixed and composited to one representative sample for physio-chemical analysis. The sample was air-dried and ground to pass through a 2 mm sieve for analyses of soil texture, pH, total nitrogen, and available P, CEC (meq/100 g), Organic carbon. Soil pH was determined in a 1:2.5 soil to water suspension following the procedure outlined [20]. Soil organic carbon content will be determined by the wet digestion method using the Walkley and Black procedure at a soil: water ratio of 1:2.5. Total nitrogen by the micro Kjeldhal method and available P was analyzed by the Olsen method. Soil particle size distribution was determined by the hydrometer method [21].

Data collection and analysis: Grain yield was harvested from central rows by avoiding border effects and converted to kg ha^-1 after adjusting the moisture content at 10%. Nodulation was assessed when 50% of plants of each plot exhibit flowering stage by carefully uprooting five plants randomly from each plot. The adhering soil was removed by washing gently over a metal sieve. The nodules from each plant were removed and separately spread on the sieve to drain water from their surface. Nodules were counted and their average was taken as the number of nodules/ plant.

Collected data were subjected to analysis of variance using the general linear model SAS version 9.0. Treatments means were compared using the Least Significant Difference (LSD) at a 5% level of significance.

Physico-chemical properties of the soil: Before planting laboratory soil analysis result indicated that the soil reaction ranges from slightly acidic to moderately alkaline (5.85-7.93) according to Landon, 1991. In all experimental sites, the available phosphorus ranges from 0.86-0.91 ppm, total nitrogen ranges from 0.12-0.21%, and Organic carbon ranges from 0.74-1.35%, as very low according to Landon, 1991 [22]. The Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) was in medium-range according to Landon, 1991 (55.7-76.1 meq /100 g of soil). According to the textural class analysis, the before was Clay in texture.

Results and Discussion

Vegetative performance

At the 50% flowering stage, the responses of the crop under investigation to the applied fertilizer and rhizobial strain was evaluated by the researcher. The evaluation at this stage revealed that there was no significant difference between and among treatments (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Response of effective nodule number for the applied strain on haricot bean.

The response of effective nodule number per plant

As the combined analysis result shown in Table 1, the number of effective nodules per plant did not have a statistically significant difference among treatments and the rhizobial strain didn’t significantly affect the effective nodule number in all testing sites. The result is contrasting the finding of Abera and Tadele’s (2016) inoculation of rhizobium bacteria increased significantly the number of nodules per plant (Table 1).

Table 1: Response of effective nodule number for the applied strain on haricot bean.

The response of grain yield

The result from this study showed that the application of phosphorus fertilizer significantly increases the grain yield of haricot bean at the Gonji Qolela district. At the Gonji Qolela district, the maximum grain yield of haricot bean (2702.4) was obtained by applying 40 kg of phosphorus which has a 682.8 kg yield advantage over the farmer practice (Table 2). As shown in Table 2, the interaction effect of rhizobia strain and phosphorus fertilizer is insignificant. The result is agreed with the finding of Shimelis (2019) addition of P without and with inoculation had a significant effect on the yield of haricot bean. As shown in Table 2 the result from this study showed that the application of rhizobial strain didn’t give a significant yield advantage over the non-inoculated at Gonji Qolela district. The result is agreed with Pereira and Bliss (1987) finding without enough P in the soil, a legume can’t fix nitrogen (Table 3).

Table 2: Response of haricot bean grain yield to applied phosphorus fertilizer and rhizobial strain in Gonji Qolela (Zema).

Table 3: Response of haricot bean grain yield to applied phosphorus fertilizer and rhizobial strain in Yilmana Densa.

As showed in Table 3 the two years result showed that the application of rhizobial strain and phosphorus fertilizer did not significantly affect the grain yield of haricot bean at Yilmana Densa district. The interaction effect between rhizobia strain and phosphorus fertilizer is also insignificant. The result is contrasting the finding of Shimelis (2019) inoculation with P or without the addition of inoculant had a significant effect on the yield of haricot bean. As shown in Table 3 the result from this study showed that the application of rhizobial strain didn’t give a significant yield advantage over the non-inoculated at Yilmana Densa district the result is agreed with Pereira and Bliss (1987) finding without enough P in the soil, a legume can’t fix nitrogen.

As showed in Table 4 at Bahir Dar Zuria district application of rhizobial strain has 531 kg and 576.9 kg yield advantage over non- inoculated and the control respectively, however, there was no significant grain yield difference for the applied phosphorus fertilizer. The interaction effect between rhizobia strain and phosphorus fertilizer was not significant. As showed in Table 4 the combined year’s result showed that the application of rhizobial strain and phosphorus fertilizer did not significantly affect the grain yield of haricot bean at Bahir Dar Zuria district. The result is in contrast with the finding of Shimelis (2019) inoculation with P or without the addition of inoculant had a significant effect on the yield of haricot bean (Table 4).

Table 4: Response of haricot bean grain yield to applied phosphorus fertilizer and rhizobial strain at Bahir Dar Zuria.

Conclusion

The application of phosphorus fertilizer significantly increases the grain yield of haricot bean at the Gonji Qolela district. Application of rhizobial strain (HB-429) inoculant did not significantly increase haricot bean grain yield at both Gonji Qolela and Yilmana Densa districts, while at Bahir Dar Zuria district a significant grain yield difference was observed by application of rhizobial strain. The application of phosphorus fertilizer did not significantly increase the grain yield of haricot bean at Yilmana Densa and Bahir Dar Zuria testing sites. Live ness of strain/inoculant should be verified before inoculation. The study needs further investigation.

References

1. Hegde NG. Water scarcity and security in India. InBAIF at the Indian Science Congress 2012.

   [Google scholar]

2. Kamble, V.S., Rao, K. R. Intentional study of bioaccumulative behavior of isomers of organochlorine pesticide thiodan (endosulfan 35% ec) in fresh water mollusc, lamellidens corrianus during monsoon season. Indian J App Res. 2016; 6(4), 264-266.

   [Google scholar]

3. Sharma N, Singhvi R. Effects of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on human health and environment: A review. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology. 2017;10(6):675-680.

   [Crossref] [Google scholar]

4. Arias-Estévez M, López-Periago E, Martínez-Carballo E, Simal-Gándara J, Mejuto JC, García-Río L. The mobility and degradation of pesticides in soils and the pollution of groundwater resources. Agric Ecosyst Enviro. 2008;123(4):247-260.

   [Crossref] [Google scholar]

5. Agarwal A, Prajapati R, Singh OP, Raza SK, Thakur LK. Pesticide residue in water: A challenging task in India. Environ Monit Assess. 2015;187(2):1-21..

   [Crossref] [Google scholar] [Pubmed]

6. Helfrich la, Weigmann dl, Hipkins pa, Stinson er. Pesticides and aquatic animals: A guide to reducing impacts on aquatic systems. 1996.

   [google scholar]

7. Jacob J, Cherian J. Review of environmental and human exposure to persistent organic pollutants. 2013; 9(11). 107-120.

   [Crossref] [Google scholar]

8. Cook JL, Baumann P, Jackman JA, Stevenson D. Pesticide characteristics that affect water quality. Farm Chemical Handbook. 1995;95:429.

   [Google scholar]

9. Elizalde-Velázquez A, Gómez-Oliván LM, Galar-Martínez M, Islas-Flores H, Dublán-García O, SanJuan-Reyes N. Amoxicillin in the aquatic environment, its fate and environmental risk. Enviro Heal Risk-Hazardous Factors to Living Species. 2016;1:247-267.

   [Crossref] [Google scholar]

10. Sheail J. The regulation of pesticides use: An historical perspective. Innovation and Environmental Risks; Belhaven Press: London, UK. 1991:38-46.

    [Google scholar]

11. Delaplane KS. Pesticide usage in the United States: History, benefits, risks, and trends. Cooperative extension service. 2000.

    [Google scholar]

12. Zhang Q, Xia Z, Wu M, Wang L, Yang H. Human health risk assessment of DDTs and HCHs through dietary exposure in Nanjing, China. Chemosphere. 2017;177:211-216.

    [Crossref] [Google scholar] [Pubmed]

13. Water scarcity and security in India
14. Barnhoorn IE, Bornman MS, Van Rensburg CJ, Bouwman H. DDT residues in water, sediment, domestic and indigenous biota from a currently DDT-sprayed area. Chemosphere. 2009;77(9):1236-1241.

    [Crossref] [Google scholar] [Pubmed]

15. Chengala L, Singh N. Botanical pesticides: A major alternative to chemical pesticides: A review. Int J Life Sci. 2017;5(4):722-729.

    [Google scholar]

16. Abrantes N, Pereira R, Gonçalves F. First step for an ecological risk assessment to evaluate the impact of diffuse pollution in Lake Vela (Portugal). Environ Monit Assess. 2006;117(1):411-431.

    [Crossref] [Google scholar]

17. Hijosa-Valsero M, Bécares E, Fernández-Aláez C, Fernández-Aláez M, Mayo R, Jiménez JJ. Chemical pollution in inland shallow lakes in the Mediterranean region (NW Spain): PAHs, insecticides and herbicides in water and sediments. Sci Total Environ. 2016;544:797-810.

    [Crossref] [Google scholar] [Pubmed]

18. Fantke P, Charles R, de Alencastro LF, Friedrich R, Jolliet O. Plant uptake of pesticides and human health: dynamic modeling of residues in wheat and ingestion intake. Chemosphere. 2011;85(10):1639-1647.

    [Crossref] [Google scholar]

19. Kumar P, Kim KH, Deep A. Recent advancements in sensing techniques based on functional materials for organophosphate pesticides. Biosens Bioelectron. 2015;70:469-681.

    [Crossref] [Google scholar] [Pubmed]

20. Faust SD, Aly OM. Water pollution by organic pesticides. J Am Water Works Assoc. 1964; 56(3):267-279.

    [Crossref] [Google scholar]

21. Aydinalp C, Porca MM. The effects of pesticides in water resources. J Cent Eur Agric. 2004;5(1):5-12.

22. Honeycutt R. Mechanisms of pesticide movement into ground water. CRC Press. 2018.

    [Google scholar].