Examines PGPR effects on root and stem growth of forage peas, suggesting optimal growing conditions.
Roughage needs can be met by increasing the area under forage crop cultivation. Legume forage crops have a wide distribution and usage area. Expanding the area under forage pea cultivation will be beneficial in alleviating the shortage of quality roughage. High-quality and reliable food or forage crop production can be achieved by maintaining soil health, but soils capable of sustaining crop production are limited and variable. An ideal soil for plant growth must possess physical and chemical properties such as proper drainage, adequate aeration, and available moisture. To achieve these conditions, plant growth-supporting organic and inorganic media and environmentally friendly bacteria are used as soil amendments. The study aimed to examine the effects of PGPRs on root and shoot development, total bacterial count, nitrogen, and crude protein values of forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.), a high-nutrient annual forage legume used for its grains, greens, and dry forage, in thirteen different growing environments, and to determine the most suitable growing medium and bacterial strain. Study, development of roots and stem forage pea was inoculated with Panteo agglomerans and Pseudomonas putida in 13 media consisting of 100% cocopeat, pumice, green tea waste, vermiculite in different ratios on a weight basis. Five plants were planted in each pot and harvested after 60 days. Root and stem dry weights, nitrogen contents, crude protein values and total bacterial count of plants dried at 65°C were determined. As a result of the research, it was found that 100% cocopeat medium was more suitable for the development of root and stem of the forage pea in different environments. Panteo agglomerans strain was more effective than Pseudomanas putida strain on stem dry and wet weight, root and stem length and bacterial count, bacterial applications gave better values compared to the control.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Banu Kadıoğlu (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: