J. Env. Bio-Sci., 2016: Vol.

30 (1):159-163
(159) ISSN 0973-6913 (Print), ISSN 0976-3384 (On Line)

EFFECT OF BIO - INOCULANTS ON MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERS

OF VEGETABLE COWPEA
Jidhu Vaishnavi, S.*,R. Nagajothi and P. Jeyakumar
Department of Crop Physiology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641003, India
[Corresponding author E-mail*: sjvaishnavi@gmail.com]

Received: 14-02-2016 Revised: 29-02-2016 Accepted: 05-03-2016

Growth and development of cowpea largely depends on the availability of nutrients. However, the increase in usage of chemicals
reduced their availability. This can be reduced by the application of bioinoculants as soil drenching or seed treatment. The present
investigation was carried out to observe the effect of bioinoculants viz., Rhizobium, Phosphobacteria and NovoBac on morphological
characters of vegetable cowpea. The results observed from the study revealed that NovoBac seed treatment @ 2g/kg + soil
drenching @ 500g/ha on 15 DAS improved the growth and yield of vegetable cowpea. The improvement was due to the effect of
different Bacillus sp. present in NovoBac helps in nutrient uptake by the plant and thus improves yield.

Pulses, the richest sources of protein and amino acids MATERIAL AND METHODS
constitute a balanced diet. Among the pulses, cowpea (Vigna
The present investigation was done to study the effect of
unguiculata L. Walp.) is one of the most important food crops
NovoBacfor morphological characters of vegetable cowpea
in the semi-arid tropics. It is cultivated primarily for seeds, but
(VBN 2). In this experiment, the bioinoculant (NovoBac) was
also as a vegetable (for leafy greens, green pods, fresh shelled
given as seed treatment and/orsoil drenching in vegetable
green peas, and shelled dried peas), a cover crop and a fodder.
cowpea variety VBN2 and the observations were recorded at
It is a warm-season, annual, herbaceous legume. In India,
specific growth stages i.e., vegetative, flowering, pod filling
cowpea is cultivated in an area of 3 lakh ha with production of
and harveststages. The experiment was laid out following
2 lakh tones and productivity falls around 25t ha-1during 2013
randomised block design with eleventreatments and three
(www.dacnet.nic.in.). In Tamil Nadu, cow pea is grown in 1.2
replications viz.,- Control (T 1), Trichodermaviride seed
lakh ha with a production of 0.25 lakh tonnes and the productivity
treatment@ 4g/kg (T2), Rhizobium+Phosphobacteria seed
is very low with 205 kg ha-1. The productivity of Vegetable
treatment @ 25g/kg(T3), NovoBac Seed treatment @ 1 g/kg
cowpea is very low due to the effect of suppression of
(T4), NovoBac Seed treatment @ 2 g/kg (T5), NovoBac
microorganisms on plants by heavy application of fertilizers in
Soildrenching @ 250 g/ha on 15 DAS (T6), NovoBac Soil
the soil which causes toxic effect. Bio-inoculants are beneficial
drenching @ 500 g/ha on 15DAS (T7), NovoBac Seed treatment
bacteria plays an important role in crop growth and
@ 1 g/kg + Soil drenching @ 250 g/ha on 15DAS (T8), NovoBac
development. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens was used to enhance
Seed treatment @ 2 g/kg + Soil drenching @ 250 g/ha on
the growth of several vegetable transplant systems1. B.
15DAS (T9), NovoBac Seed treatment @ 1 g/kg + Soil
amyloliquefaciens and B. subtilis have strong growth-promoting
drenching @ 500 g/ha on 15DAS (T10), NovoBac Seed
activity. NovoBac a combination of Bacillus spp. bacteria is a
treatment @ 2 g/kg + Soil drenching @ 500 g/ha on 15 DAS
new bioinoculants promoted by Novozymes South Asia,
(T11). Morphological characters such as shoot length (cm),
Bangalore. It can be applied as seed treatment, soil drenching
root length (cm), root shoot ratio and number of leaves were
and drip or direct to soil media and also as fertilizer. The
assessed by selecting ten normal seedlings at random from
composition of NovoBac includes the following inoculant
each replication. The data observed were compiled and
microorganisms amounting to a minimum of 8.5 x 109 cfu/g.
statistical analysis was carried out under randomized block
With this background, the present investigation was carried
design2.
out to find out the effect of bioinocualnt (NovoBac) as seed
treatment on seedling characters of cowpea.

NAAS Rating (2016)-4.20

 EFFECT OF BIOINOCULANTS ON CHARACTERS OF COWPEA (160)

Table-1.Effect of bionoculant(NovoBac) on shoot length (cm) at different growth stages of cowpea.

Table-2.Effect of bionoculant(NovoBac) on root length (cm) at different growth stages of Cowpea.

(161) VAISHNAVI, NAGAJOTHI AND JEYAKUMAR

Table-3.Effect of bionoculant (NovoBac) on root shoot ratio at different growth stages of Cowpea.

which helps in cell division and cell expansion for the

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Shoot Length:The data on plant height (cm) of cowpea variety
VBN2 as influenced by the bioinoculant (NovoBac ) at various
growth stages is presented in Table-1. The results indicated
an linear increase in shoot length from vegetative to harvest
stages irrespective of the treatments. The treatment T11
(NovoBac seed treatment @ 2g/kg + soil drenching @ 500g/
ha on 15 DAS) registered the maximum height at vegetative
(30.2), flowering (45.7), pod filling (67.0) and harvest (80.0)
stages.The plant height was observed low in control (T1) at all
the stages when compared to other treatments.The increase
in shoot length with single inoculation of Rhizobium compared
to uninoculated plant was due to production of IAA and GA
growth3.These results are line with the seedlings inoculated
with Rhizobium had greater shoot length as compared to
control4. Rhizobium inoculation significantly affected the plant
height. Inoculation of seed with Rhizobium significantly
increase plant height of lentil5.The increase in shoot length of
NovoBac inoculated plants might be due to the stimulatory
effects of microbe induced growth regulators i.e., IAA and GA6.
Root length:The data pertaining to root length are presented
in Table-2. Root length was found increased as the maturity of
the cropping period advanced. The difference among the
bioinoculant (NovoBac) treatments were found to be significant.
The T11 treatment promoted root length significantly by recording
 EFFECT OF BIOINOCULANTS ON CHARACTERS OF COWPEA (162)

Table-4.Effect of bionoculant (NovoBac) on number of leaves at different growth stages of cowpea

Fig.-1 . Effect of bioinoculant (NovoBac) on Vegetable pod yield

(163) VAISHNAVI, NAGAJOTHI AND JEYAKUMAR

31.3 cm while the control (T1) recording lowest root length at
harvest stage. However, the treatment T11 recorded statistically
comparable values with treatments T9 and T10 at harvest stage
by registering 29.8 and 29.4 cm.The root development was
due to the production of auxin and mineralization of nutrients
by PGPR7. The colonization of Rhizobium helps in hormonal
synthesis which has direct role in root development with lateral
root formation8.Increase in root length is due to accumulation
of cytokinin in root.
Shoot root ratio:The influence of bioinoculant (NovoBac) on
root shoot ratio is indicated in Table-3.The data presented in
table showed that T11 (NovoBac seed treatment @ 2g/kg +
soil drenching @ 500g/ha on 15 DAS) had higher root-shoot
ratio (0.185) at flowering stage. The treatments T8, T9 and T10
were found on par with each other at the same stage of
observation.
Number of leaves:The number of leaves increased from
vegetative to flowering stages, and then it declined at pod
filling and maturity (Table-4). The treatment T11 (NovoBac seed
treatment @ 2g/kg + soil drenching @ 500g/ha on 15 DAS)
recorded the highest number of leaves (14.4, 28.6, 26.0 and
8.0) at all the growth stages. The number of leaves was
observed low in control (T1) at all the stages as compared to
sometimes enhance the plant growth and yield depending upon
the establishment of introduced cultures. The increased
biological yield in treated plants might be attributed to high
vegetative growth owing to the availability of nitrogen in soil.The
increase in growth and yield of chickpea could also be due to
the nutrient supplementation by inoculated organisms, as they
might have enhanced the efficiency of N fixation by Rhizobium,
P-solubilization by PSB and effective pathogen suppression
by Trichoderma spp.This was in agreement with work in lentil
seed with phosphate solubilising bacteria (PSB) improved its
seed yield besides improving P use efficiency10. Beneficial
effect of PSB on seed yield has been reported by other
workers11-13.
CONCLUSION
From the study, it was observed that seed treatment with
NovoBac@ 2g/kg + soil drenching @ 500g/ha was found to be
effective in improving seed germination than comparing with
other treatments.
REFERENCES
1. Kenney D. S., Reddy M. S. and Kloepper J.W., (1999).
Phytopathol. 89: S39.
2. Gomez K. A. and Gomez A. A., (1984). In: Statistical procedures

other treatments.Besides accelerating the leaf production, the
delayed abscission of leaves might be a possible reason for
3.
the maintenance of higher number of leaves as explained in
4.
starwberry9. Besides, T9 (NovoBac seed treatment @ 2g/kg +
soil drenching @ 250g/ha on15 DAS) treatment combination
5.
was also equally effective in improving the leaf production by 6.
46 % over control. 7.
Yield:The vegetable yield of cow pea as influenced by
8.
bioinoculant (NovoBac) treatment. Significantly higher
vegetable pod yield (6.22 tonnes/ha) was registered with the
9.
treatment T11 (NovoBac seed treatment @ 2g/kg + soil
10.
drenching @ 500g/ha on 15 DAS) when compared to control
(5.39 tonnes/ha). The treatments, T8 and T9 also recorded 11.
statistically comparable values with the treatment T10 (Fig.- 12.
1). Seed bacterization temporarily changes the balance of 13.
the rhizosphere populations and such changes may
for agricultural research.An IRRI book, Wiley Interscience
Publication, John Wile and Sons, New York, USA.
Kaya C., Tuna L. and Higgs D., (2006). J.PlantNutr.29: 1469.
Muthukumar T., Udaiyan K. and Rajeshkannan V., (2001). Biol.
Fertil. Soils 34: 417.
Hoque M. M. and Haq H. F., (1994).LensNewsletter 21:29.
Rabie K. A. E., (1996). Annal. Agric. Sci.,41: 99.
Steenhoudt O. and Vanderleyden J., (2000). FEMS Microbiol
Review 24: 487..
Bhattacharyya R. N. and Pati B. R. , (2000). Acta Microbiologica
Immunologica Hungarica 47(1): 41.
Leece D. R. and Kenworthy A. L., (1971).Hort. Sci. 6:171.
Singh K. K. Ch. Srinivasaraoa and Masood Ali. (2005).
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 36: 1919.
Dubey S. K., (2001). Indian J. Agrl Sci. 71: 476.
Mukherjee O. P. K. and Rai R.K., (2000).Indian J. Agron. 45: 602.
Rudresh D. L., Shivaprakasha M. K. and Prasad R. D., (2005).
Appl. Soil Ecol. 28:139.