**Improving Bread Wheat Productivity and Reduce Use of Mineral Nitrogen by Inoculation with** *Azotobacter* **and** *Azospirillum* **Under Arid Environment in Upper Egypt**

Abd El-Lattief, E.A.

Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, South Valley University, Qena, Egypt

#### **Abstract**

The effect of integrated use of mineral N fertilizer (Urea) and biofertilizer (*Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum*) on grain yield, grain yield attributes and harvest index of wheat was assessed. Two field experiments were carried out on a sandy soil in the Experimental Farm of the Faculty of Agriculture, South Valley University at Qena Governorate, Egypt. The recommended N (230 kg N ha-1) and biofertilizer (*Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum*) were applied alone and in various combinations among them. A randomized complete block design, with three replications, was used in this study.

Treatments significantly affected plant height, spike length, number of spikelets/spike, kernel weight /spike, 1000-kernel weight, grain and straw yields and harvest index. The highest values of such traits were obtained in treatment T11 (75% mineral N + biofertilizer with *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum*). However, T12 (50% mineral N + biofertilizer with *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum*) resulted also higher values for the above mentioned traits comparing with T1 (100% nitrogen and uninoculated) but the differences among the two treatments almost did not attain the statistical differences.

From this study, it can be concluded that the biofertilizers (double-inoculation of *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum*) of efficient strains could save 25 or 50 % of the recommended dose of mineral N.

**Keywords**: Wheat, Biofertilizers, Azotobacter, Azospirillum, Grain yield.

## **1. Introduction**

The high cost of chemical nitrogenous fertilizers and the low purchasing power of most of the farmers restrict its use in proper amounts, hampering crop production. Besides, a substantial amount of the urea-N is lost through different mechanisms including ammonia volatilisation, denitrification and leaching losses, causing environmental pollution problems [1, 2].

The utilization of biological nitrogen fixation technology can decrease the use of urea-N, prevent the depletion of soil organic matter and reduce environmental pollution to a considerable extent [3, 4]. Also, Use of biofertilizers on Egyptian soils has decreased the pH, which had led to increased availability of trace elements that enhance plant growth. Bio-fertilizers are eco-friendly

and have been proved to be effective and economical alternate of chemical fertilizers with lesser input of capital and energy [5].

International Conference on Applied Life Sciences (ICALS2012)

*(%) x 100 Biolo gical yield*

The experiment was carried out in a randomized block design with three replications. Experimental unit measured 3.0 m in width and 4 m in length. Bread wheat (Giza 168 cv.) was sown on the 10th of November in each season. The other cultural practices were carried out as recom-

At harvest time, ten fertile stems were taken at random from each plot for measuring plant height, spike length, number of spikelets/spike and kernel weight /spike. Also, 1000-kerenl weight was estimated for each plot. Meanwhile, grain and straw yields were estimated at plot basis. Harvest

The data were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) using MSTAT-C statistical software. Treatment means were compared using Duncan's multiple tests [15]. Since data followed the

Data presented in Table 1 indicated that various studied treatments had a significant effect (P < 0.01) on plant height, spike length, number of spikelets/spike, kernel weight /spike and 1000-kernel weight. Table 2 shows that greatest values of such traits were from treatment T11 (75% mineral N + biofertilizer with *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum*). Also, T11 significantly increased plant height, spike length, number of spikelets/spike, kernel weight /spike and 1000-kernel weight by 4.1, 13.2,

by 30.9, 67.2, 53.5, 100, 76.3%, respectively, compared to T14 (without nitrogen and uninoculated). However, T12 (50% mineral N + biofertilizer with *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum*) resulted also

uninoculated) but the differences among the two treatments almost did not attain the statistical

their values than those in T14 (without nitrogen and uninoculated) treatment. These findings are

kernel weight per spike ( 2.035 g) and 1000-kernel weight (33.33 g) than those of inoculation with

The effects of studied treatments on the grain and straw yields were significant at 1 % level (Table 1). Means in Table 2 indicates that superiority of grain and straw yields were achieved by application of double-inoculation of *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum* plus 75% mineral N (T11) with a grain and straw yields of 5.046 and 6.470 tons ha-1, respectively. Meanwhile, double-inoculation

higher values for the above mentioned yield components comparing with T1

in agreement with those of Sharief *et al* [16], Elsayed *et al* [17] and El-Garhi *et al* [18].

*Grain yield Harvest = Index*

homogeneity test, pooling was carried out over the seasons and mean data are given.

index (%) of each plot was calculated by using the following formula:

mended for the crop.

**3. Results and discussion**

10.2, 9.6 and 12.0 %, respectively, compared to T1

**3.1. Yield attributes**

differences. Meanwhile, T1

*Azotobacter* alone (T2

Inoculation with *Azospirillum* alone (T3

).

**3.2. Grain and straw yields** 

Turkey, September 10-12, 2012

(100% mineral nitrogen and uninoculated) and

resulted yield and yield components almost significantly higher in

) produced significantly higher plant height (98.4 cm),

(100% nitrogen and

<sup>395</sup> ISALS

Biofertilizer contains live or latent cells of efficient strains of nitrogen fixing, phosphate solubilizing or cellulolytic micro-organisms used for application to seed, soil or composting areas to accelerate microbial processes to augment the extent of availability of nutrients.

Nitrogen fixation potential of *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum* are known. The organic matter rich soils promote the activities of these organisms [6, 7]. Also, free-living nitrogen-fixing bacteria *eg Azotobacter chroococcum* and *Azospirillum lipoferum,* were found to have not only the ability to fix nitrogen but also the ability to release phytohormones similar to gibberellic acid and indole acetic acid, which could stimulate plant growth, absorption of nutrients, and photosynthesis [8].

Many authors have shown the positive effect inoculation of wheat with Azotobacter or/and *Azospirillum* [9, 10, 11, 12]. Tilak [13] reported positive effects of double-inoculation of *Azotobacter*  and *Azospirillum* on dry matter of maize and sorghum. Rai and Caur [14] studied *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum* and double-inoculation and alone inoculation effects on wheat growth and yield. Double-inoculation of *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum* had positive effects on plant height, spike length, grain yield, biological yield and harvest index in various wheat genotypes.

Present study aims to evaluate the importance of bio-fertilization in the improvement growth and productivity of bread wheat crop as well as the expansion of bio-agriculture to reduce agriculture costs and environmental pollution via lowering mineral fertilizers application.

## **2. Materials and methods**

The field experiments were conducted at the Experimental Farm, Faculty of Agriculture, South Valley University (latitude 26°10′ N, longitude 32°43′ E, Altitude 79 m above sea level), Qena, Egypt during 2010-11 and 2011-12 seasons. The soil of the experimental site is sandy throughout its profile (73.7% coarse sand, 16.8% fine sand, 5.8% silt and 3.7% clay). Its pH value of 7.62, 1.75 EC (dSm-1), 0.45% organic matter content, 0.25% total N, and available P and K of 7.42 and 170 ppm, respectively. The weather is very hot and dry from May to October where temperatures can reach up to 40 °C. On the other hand, the weather is usually warm during winter months and rainfall is rare.

The dose of nitrogen (230 kg N ha-1) was manipulated at various levels in combination with different biofertilizers as per the treatment schedule. The different treatment combination as follows:

T1 - 100% mineral N (MN), T2 - *Azotobacter* (AZB) alone, T3 - *Azospirillum* (AZS) alone, T4 - AZB + AZS, T5 - 75 % MN + AZB, T6 - 50 % MN + AZB, T7 - 25 % MN + AZB, T8 - 75 % MN + AZS, T9 - 50 % MN + AZS, T10- 25 % MN + AZS, T11- 75 % MN + AZB + AZS, T12- 50 % MN + AZB + AZS, T13- 25 % MN + AZB + AZS, T14- Control (without nitrogen and uninoculated). The seeds were inoculated by liquid culture of locally isolated strains of *Azotobacter lipoferum* and *Azospirillum chroococcum* (≈107 CFU/ml) which obtained from Biofertilizers Production Unit of Faculty of Agriculture, South Valley University. 1% of carboxy methyl cellulose (CMC) was added to the culture to increase its viscosity to gel form to act as adhesive biostabilizer, the addition of CMC was made just before using.

The experiment was carried out in a randomized block design with three replications. Experimental unit measured 3.0 m in width and 4 m in length. Bread wheat (Giza 168 cv.) was sown on the 10th of November in each season. The other cultural practices were carried out as recommended for the crop.

At harvest time, ten fertile stems were taken at random from each plot for measuring plant height, spike length, number of spikelets/spike and kernel weight /spike. Also, 1000-kerenl weight was estimated for each plot. Meanwhile, grain and straw yields were estimated at plot basis. Harvest index (%) of each plot was calculated by using the following formula:

$$\text{Harvest Index (\%)} = \frac{\text{Grain yield}}{\text{Bido signal yield}} \ge 100$$

The data were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) using MSTAT-C statistical software. Treatment means were compared using Duncan's multiple tests [15]. Since data followed the homogeneity test, pooling was carried out over the seasons and mean data are given.

#### **3. Results and discussion**

#### **3.1. Yield attributes**

Data presented in Table 1 indicated that various studied treatments had a significant effect (P < 0.01) on plant height, spike length, number of spikelets/spike, kernel weight /spike and 1000-kernel weight. Table 2 shows that greatest values of such traits were from treatment T11 (75% mineral N + biofertilizer with *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum*). Also, T11 significantly increased plant height, spike length, number of spikelets/spike, kernel weight /spike and 1000-kernel weight by 4.1, 13.2, 10.2, 9.6 and 12.0 %, respectively, compared to T1 (100% mineral nitrogen and uninoculated) and by 30.9, 67.2, 53.5, 100, 76.3%, respectively, compared to T14 (without nitrogen and uninoculated). However, T12 (50% mineral N + biofertilizer with *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum*) resulted also higher values for the above mentioned yield components comparing with T1 (100% nitrogen and uninoculated) but the differences among the two treatments almost did not attain the statistical differences. Meanwhile, T1 resulted yield and yield components almost significantly higher in their values than those in T14 (without nitrogen and uninoculated) treatment. These findings are in agreement with those of Sharief *et al* [16], Elsayed *et al* [17] and El-Garhi *et al* [18].

Inoculation with *Azospirillum* alone (T3 ) produced significantly higher plant height (98.4 cm), kernel weight per spike ( 2.035 g) and 1000-kernel weight (33.33 g) than those of inoculation with *Azotobacter* alone (T2 ).

#### **3.2. Grain and straw yields**

The effects of studied treatments on the grain and straw yields were significant at 1 % level (Table 1). Means in Table 2 indicates that superiority of grain and straw yields were achieved by application of double-inoculation of *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum* plus 75% mineral N (T11) with a grain and straw yields of 5.046 and 6.470 tons ha-1, respectively. Meanwhile, double-inoculation of *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum* plus 50% mineral N (T12) resulted higher value for the studied grain yield (4.684 t ha-1) comparing with T1 (4.486 t ha-1) but the differences among the two treatments did not attain the statistical differences. Also, T12 treatment did not differ significantly with application with 100% mineral N (T1 ) concerning the effect of straw yield as its values attained 6.059 and 6.058 t ha-1 for the two treatments, respectively.

International Conference on Applied Life Sciences (ICALS2012)

respectively) were obtained from T14 (without nitrogen and uninoculated). It is evident from the data in Table 2 that combined application of mineral and biofertilizers were favorable in enhanc-

Such increase in yields (grain and straw) and grain yield attributes, due to application of T11 or T12, might be due to the role of biofertilizer (*Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum*) in enhancing soil biological activity, which improved nutrient mobilization from organic and chemical sources. Also, the biofertilizer plays a significant role in regulating the dynamics of organic matter decomposition and the availability of plant nutrients and in increasing nitrogen fixer. In this case, Radwan and Hussein [19], Sharief *et al* [16], Elsayed *et al* [17], El-Garhi *et al* [18], Badr *et al* [11] and Bahrani *et al* [12] found positive effect on yield and yield attributes of wheat when inoculated with biofertilizer. In controlled field trials in Iran, Khavazi *et al* [20] found that yield improvements of more than 20% have been observed for wheat as a result of application of *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum* inoculums.

Variance analyzing of harvest index, data showed that harvest index was significant influenced by various studied treatments at 1% probability level (Table 1). Application of T11 resulted highest

(42.2%) without any differences significant among them (Table 2). Meanwhile, the lower value of harvest index (39.0%) was obtained from T14. Thus it is indicated that using bio-fertilizers caused to increasing harvest index due to effect on dry weight and allocating more photosynthetic mat-

The interaction effect of fertilization and year was not significant for all yield attributes traits and grain yield as well as harvest index (Table 1). Such results indicated that fertilization treatments

In conclusion, the use of biofertilizers became ineludible to minimize the environmental pollution, caused by the chemical ones, and to improve the yield quality of various crops needed at the time being. Although 25 or 50 % of mineral N was replaced by biofertilizers (double-inoculation of *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum*), the yield and its components of wheat increased compared to that obtained with the recommended dose of mineral nitrogen. Finally, the biofertilizers of ef-

[1] De Datta, S.K. and R.J. Buresh, 1989. Integrated nitrogen management in irrigated rice. Advances

[2] Choudhury, A.T.M.A. and I.R. Kennedy, 2005. Nitrogen fertiliser losses from rice soils and control of environmental pollution problems. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 36,

[3] Choudhury, A.T.M.A. and I.R. Kennedy, 2004. Prospects and potentials for systems of biological nitrogen fixation in sustainable rice production. Biology and Fertility of Soils 39, 219–227.

ficient strains could save 25 or 50 % of the recommended dose of mineral nitrogen.

value of harvest index (43.8%) and it was followed by T12 (43.6%), T8

ing yield than using mineral or biofertilizer alone.

showed similar effects from season to season.

**3.3. Harvest index**

ters to grain.

**4. Conclusion**

**5. References**

1625–1639.

in Soil Science 10, 143–169.

Turkey, September 10-12, 2012

(42.7%), T1

(42.5%) and T5

<sup>397</sup> ISALS


\*\* significant at P < 0.01 level

**Table 1.** Analysis of variance of measured parameters


The same letters within columns means not significant differences at 5% level.

**Table 2.** The associative influence of biofertilizers and reduced doses of mineral nitrogen on wheat yield parameters (data over two seasons).

Application of T11 had significantly higher grain and straw yields by 12.5 and 6.8 % relative to T1 and by 98.3 and 62.4%, respectively relative to T14. Also, T12 had significantly higher grain and straw yields by 84.1 and 52.3%, respectively relative to T14. Also it is showed in Table 2 that *Azospirillum* is more effective than *Azotobacter* on grain yield due to more role of *Azospirillum* in up taking nitrogen produced by biological fixing by *Azospirillum* bacteria that finally will cause to more grain yield of plant. The lower values of grain and straw yields (2.545 and 3.978 t ha-1, respectively) were obtained from T14 (without nitrogen and uninoculated). It is evident from the data in Table 2 that combined application of mineral and biofertilizers were favorable in enhancing yield than using mineral or biofertilizer alone.

Such increase in yields (grain and straw) and grain yield attributes, due to application of T11 or T12, might be due to the role of biofertilizer (*Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum*) in enhancing soil biological activity, which improved nutrient mobilization from organic and chemical sources. Also, the biofertilizer plays a significant role in regulating the dynamics of organic matter decomposition and the availability of plant nutrients and in increasing nitrogen fixer. In this case, Radwan and Hussein [19], Sharief *et al* [16], Elsayed *et al* [17], El-Garhi *et al* [18], Badr *et al* [11] and Bahrani *et al* [12] found positive effect on yield and yield attributes of wheat when inoculated with biofertilizer. In controlled field trials in Iran, Khavazi *et al* [20] found that yield improvements of more than 20% have been observed for wheat as a result of application of *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum* inoculums.

## **3.3. Harvest index**

Variance analyzing of harvest index, data showed that harvest index was significant influenced by various studied treatments at 1% probability level (Table 1). Application of T11 resulted highest value of harvest index (43.8%) and it was followed by T12 (43.6%), T8 (42.7%), T1 (42.5%) and T5 (42.2%) without any differences significant among them (Table 2). Meanwhile, the lower value of harvest index (39.0%) was obtained from T14. Thus it is indicated that using bio-fertilizers caused to increasing harvest index due to effect on dry weight and allocating more photosynthetic matters to grain.

The interaction effect of fertilization and year was not significant for all yield attributes traits and grain yield as well as harvest index (Table 1). Such results indicated that fertilization treatments showed similar effects from season to season.

## **4. Conclusion**

In conclusion, the use of biofertilizers became ineludible to minimize the environmental pollution, caused by the chemical ones, and to improve the yield quality of various crops needed at the time being. Although 25 or 50 % of mineral N was replaced by biofertilizers (double-inoculation of *Azotobacter* and *Azospirillum*), the yield and its components of wheat increased compared to that obtained with the recommended dose of mineral nitrogen. Finally, the biofertilizers of efficient strains could save 25 or 50 % of the recommended dose of mineral nitrogen.

## **5. References**


[4] Kennedy, I.R., A.T.M.A. Choudhury and M.L. Kecskés, 2004. Non-symbiotic bacterial diazotrophs in cropfarming systems: can their potential for plant growth promotion be better exploited? Soil Biology and Biochemistry 36, 1229–1244.

International Conference on Applied Life Sciences (ICALS2012)

**Information Technology and E-Commerce** 

**Reflexes on Total and Agricultural Trade in** 

, Abdelbaky M. Elshaib<sup>2</sup>

Nowadays, E-commerce has been developing quickly and it brings great impact on economy of all the countries. We insist that the E-commerce development in developing countries and economies in transition will have fine perspectives if the government, corporations and all the related people make great effort together. These papers address the issue of understanding the components of the information economy and E-commerce (profitability of .ese Experiment, this research aimed to identification, entity, characteristics and divisions and to figure out its profitability in Egypt. This research aimed also to pinpoint the measures necessary to incorporate the E-commerce between Egypt and the others commentating countries. We therefore propose a framework consisting of five components. First, concept and entity of E-commerce and its importance in marketing area, secondly, information and communication technology in developing and developed countries, third, the effect of internet on the Egyptian trade, forth, the effect of

**Keywords:** (Ec) Electronic commerce, (ICT) Information and Communication Technology, (ITU) international Telecommunication Union, (PIS) Primary Information sector, (SIS) Secondary Information Sector, (ET) Electronic Trade,(BtoB) Business to Business, and (BtoC) Business to con-

Nowadays, E-commerce has been developing quickly and it brings great impact on economy of all the countries, and play important role in foreign agriculture trade in both developed and developing countries. Research Problem The research problem confined to important question; that is how far profitability would Egypt gain from ET, although it regarded as an user rather than producer of information technology. In addition, nowadays, the assessment of ET amount encountered a practical difficulties; this attributable to the absence of local or international system or rules could control such trade.Furthermore, the formal statistical institutions could not monitor the precise or actual amount of ET and the scientific studies and literatures pertaining such trade regarded very few either at local or international scale. It can be said, that the agricultural marketing via ET in Egypt still limited although there are a continuous increase in number of agricultural ET sites in Egypt. Consensus. This research aimed to: Determination of the direct positive impacts of ET on the national income, by supporting and boosting the external trade. Assessment of the effect of transportation means of technology (Internet) on the Egyptian Agric.

1 Department of Agricultural Economics, kafr elsheikh University, kafr elsheikh, Egypt

2 Department.of Agricultural Economics, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

**Egypt**

**Abstract**

sumer.

**1. Introduction**

Mahmoud M .Fawaz<sup>1</sup>

Internet on the Egypt Agric. Trade

© 2012 Fawaz et al.; licensee InTech. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited.

Turkey, September 10-12, 2012

, Roshdy Sh. El Adwy<sup>1</sup>

<sup>399</sup> ISALS

