03 226 E&E 01Feb2013 Paper II de Silva

8/12/2019 03 226 E&E 01Feb2013 Paper II de Silva

1/17

2/19/20

Tea Research Inst i tute of Sri Lanka

Soil Fertility Improvement through

Biofilmed Bio-fertilisers (BFBFs):

- Potentials for Field Applications -

Dr M S D L De Silva

Senior Research Officer

Agronomy Division


Improvement of soil fertility

2

Non

Chemical

(biologicaland physical

methods)

Rehabilitation

Burying of pruning

Mulching

Composting

Forking

Shade establishment and management

Soil conservation methods (SALT etc..)

Intercropping

Chemical Synthetic /Chemical fertiliser/pH correction


2/17

2/19/20


Detrimental effects of Conventional (Chemical)

Farming system

3

Soil degradation(40% global agric.)

Water pollution

Loss of biodiversity(soil fauna and flora)

Desertification

Changes in soil structure

Buildup of toxic compounds

Declining the cropproductivity


Soil fertility Improvement through Biofertilisers

Live formulates ofbeneficial organisms

Fix and mobilize

nutrients throughbiological activities

Rejuvenate soilsystem & sustain thecrop productivity

In forest ecosystem , 99% pathogens could be suppressed by

beneficial microbes


3/17

2/19/20


Soil fertility Improvement through Bio-fertilisers

Mono culturesRhizobium, Azotobacter, Bacillus megatheriumMycorrhizal fungi

Mixed cultures

Rhizobium + Phosphobacterium

Azotobacter + Pseudomonas

Biofilmed Bio-fertilisers: (developed microbialcommunity)

Penicillium spp. + Bradyrhizobium elkaniSoybean ( 30% N f.ca.)Pleurotus ostreatus + Bradyrhizobium elkani-Mushroom ( 25% N f.ca.)Psedomonas fluorescens + Pleurotus ostreatus TomatoBiofilms of Rice Endophytes - Rice Experiments in progress

Combination of bacteria and fungi (F3B & FR) - Tea


Definition and functions of Biofilm

6

What is Biofilm:

Its a complex aggregation of microorganisms

that include bacteria, fungi, algae etc. with EPS-(Extracellular Polymeric Substance) which providesstructure and protects the community

Functions of Biofilm:

Agents forbio-fertilisersCorporative microbes

and bio control of pests Competitive microbes

What is Biofilmed Biofertilisers:

More efficient Bio fertilisers with fungal-bacterialbiofilm


4/17


5/17

2/19/20


Advantages of BFBFs

9

Effective in N2 fixing

- can be used for non legumes as bio-fertlisers -

Enhance P use by improving P solubilization

Enhance soil K by chelating action

Enhance plant growth by growth hormones

Production of antimicrobial compounds

Enhance mycorrhizal association

Increase uptake of nutrients (P, N, Zn, Cu, Fe)

Plant withstand better for environmental stress

Inhibit fungal pathogens


Outcomes of nursery experiments

10

Treatments T65 , BFBF + T65, & T65

Improved soil C, K, available P, MBC and nitrogenase activity

Improved plant growth and physiological parameters

Chemical Fertiliser inputs could be reduced by half


6/17

2/19/20


Field application of BFBFs

11

Objectives

To investigate the influence of BFBF on soil, plant

nutrient status and yield of immature tea

To explore possibility of reducing

synthetic/chemical nutrient inputs


Treatment combinations and methodology

12

T1: TRI recommended quantity of fertiliser (T750) & 4 appli.ns (CF)

T2: BFBF + Half of recommended chemical fertiliser & 4 appli.ns(BFBF + CF)

T3: Half recommended chemical fertiliser & 4 applications ( CF)

BFBF

F3B: Bacteria isolated from Arachis pin toi i

Bacteria isolated from tea rhizosphere

Fungi isolated from tea rhizosphere

Baci l lus megatherium or

FR: Bacteria isolated from refuse tea

Bacteria isolated from Mana roots

Baci l lus megatherium

Three locations: Rpura (TRI 4042), Elkaduwa (TRI 2025), Kottawa

(TRI 4006)

F3B FR


7/17

2/19/20


Dosage and frequency of application

13

Fertilizer application

3 months interval (T750)- 1750 kg/ha/annum

BFBF application

1-2 weeks after fertilizer application

By knapsack sprayer without nozzel

(50 mls in tank- required 25 tanks/ha)


Development of N2 fixing bacteria in a soil (in vitro)

14

100% Chemical Fertiliser suppressed growth of N2 fixing bacteria


8/17

2/19/20


BFBF on soil available P

15

P availability increased with BFBF + CF (T2)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ratnapura Elkaduwa Kottawa

Available P (ppm)

CF BFBF + CF CF


BFBF on soil exchangeable K

16

Exchangeable K increased with BFBF + CF (T2) in

comparison to CF (T1) in Elkaduwa and Kottawa

0

40

80

120

160

200


Soil potassium (ppm)

CF BFBF + CF CF


9/17

2/19/20


BFBF on soil organic carbon (%)

17

No significant difference in OC content between CF (T1) and

BFBF + CF (T2)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5


Soil organic carbon (%)

CF BFBF + CF CF


Microbial biomass carbon (g/g)

18

Improved microbial biomass carbon in BFBF + CF (T2)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

Ratnapura Kottawa

Microbial Biomass Carbon (MBC g/g)

CF BFBF + CF CF


10/17

2/19/20


Cation Exchange Capacity - (CEC) Ratnapura soil

19

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

CF BFBF + CF CF

CEC (mili eq/100g)

Improved CEC in BFBF + CF (T2)


Soil moisture status (%)

20

Improved soil moisture status in BFBF + CF (T2)

02

4

6

8

1012

14

16

1820


Soil Moisture %

CF BFBF + CF CF


11/17

2/19/20


Transpiration rate (milimol cm-2s-1)

21

0

5

10

15

20

25


Transpiration rate

CF BFBF + CF CF

Reduced transpiration rate in BFBF + CF (T2)


Yield data - 2nd year after bringing into bearing(Made tea kg/ha)

22

No significant difference between CF1 (T1) and BFBF + CF (T2)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000


2nd year yield after harvesting commenced

CF BFBF + CF CF


12/17

2/19/20


N removal (kg/ha)

23

No significant difference in N removal between CF(T1) and

BFBF + CF (T2)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


N removal (kg/ha)

CF BFBF + CF CF


P removal (kg/ha)

24

No significant difference in N removal between CF(T1) and

BFBF + CF (T2)

In Ratnapura trial, BFBF + CF (T2) was higher than CF (T1)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


P removal (kg/ha)

CF BFBF + CF CF


13/17

2/19/20


K removal (kg/ha)

25

Increased K removal in BFBF + CF (T2) at Ratnapura and Kottawa.

In Elkaduwa trial CF (T1) was higher than BFBF + CF (T2)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


K removal (kg/ha)

CF BFBF + CF CF


Mg removal (kg/ha)

26

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Elkaduwa Kottawa

Mg removal (kg/ha)

CF BFBF + CF CF

Increased Mg removal in BFBF + CF (T2) at Kottawa Trial.

In Elkaduwa trial CF (T1) was higher than BFBF + CF (T2)


14/17

2/19/20


Effect of BFBFs on soil N2O emission and

carbon storage (Ratnapura soil)

27

Treatments N2O

mol/g soil/4hr

Soil C Storage

(tC/ha)

Rec. fert.

(CF)

12.3 8.38

BFBF +

rec.fert.

ND 10.92

rec.fert 4.21 9.43

In BFBF + CF (T2): N2O emission was not detected.

Carbon storage was higher (2t/ha) in BFBF + CF (T2) than (CF) T1


Benefits

28

Increased soil exchangeable K, Available P, CEC and

MBC

Reduction of leaching

Improved soil carbon level

Improved soil moisture level

Reduced transpiration rate

Savings (National level)


15/17

2/19/20


Cost benefits (Rs/ha/yr)

29

Application of

ChemicalFertiliser

Che. Fer.

Cost kg/ha Unit PriceAmount

(Rs.)

Total

Rs./ha/yr

4th yr T750 1750 50.5 88,375.00

Worker 4*15 572 34,320.00 88375.00

Application of

BFBFTanks/ha

BFBF 4*25tanks 90 9000.00

(50ml/tank)

Worker 4*3 572 6864.00

T750 875 50.5 44187.5060051.50

Worker 4*15 572 34320.00

Savings 28323.50


Conclusions

30

a) As compared to CF (T1) plants treated with BFBFs + CF (T2)

showed

Similar productivity level in immature tea,

Improved physiological performances,

Increased soil exchangeable K, available P, soil OC, MBC and CEC.

Increased soil carbon storage,

Reduce greenhouse gas emission (N2O)b) Tested BFBFs are cost effective

c) There is a potential to replace recommended fertiliser use by

application of BFBFs.


16/17

2/19/20


Acknowledgements

31

Dr KG Prematileke, Head, Agronomy Division

Dr G P Gunaratne, Head, SPND

Dr M A Wijeratna, OIC, LCS

Mr APDA Jayasekera

Ms ETWP Prematunge

Ms S N Wijesekera

Mr U P Abeysekera

Ms L A S P Jayasinghe

Prof. G Seneviratne, IFS, Hantane


hank you

32


17/17

2/19/20

Tea Research Inst i tute of Sri Lanka 33

Net C accumulation in plant, soil, and

C leached

03 226 E&E 01Feb2013 Paper II de Silva

Documents

Transcript of 03 226 E&E 01Feb2013 Paper II de Silva