Welcome to International Network for Natural Sciences | INNSpub

Paper Details

Research Paper | May 1, 2016

| Download 1

Effect of Biological Agents (Biofresh) and Organic Matter to Progress of Soybean Mosaic Virus (SMV) and Yield of Soybean in Sub-Optimal Ultisol Land

Andi Khaeruni, Desi Satriana, Teguh Wijayanto, Didik Harnowo, Andi Abdul Rahman Syafar, Abdul Wahab

Key Words:

Int. J. Biosci.8(5), 136-145, May 2016

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12692/ijb/8.5.136-145


IJB 2016 [Generate Certificate]


Soybean mosaic virus (SMV) is most recognized as the source of problems for the soybean crop. This study aimed to investigate the effect of biological agents (Biofresh) and organic matter on the progress of Soybean Mosaic Virus (SMV). This study uses factorial randomized complete block design consisting of two factors i.e. biological agent (Biofresh) formulations and organic matter compost treatments. Data were analyzed using the SAS 9.1.3 version statistical softwere. The treatments were significantly different tested further by Duncan multiple range test at 5% level. Single treatment of Biofresh formulations and the type of organic matter influenced the latent period, the disease severity, AUDPC value of SMV and the soybean plants grown in sub-optimal ultisol land. The latent period symptoms of SMV applied with Biofresh formulation and organic matter were found on average of 9-11 days after inoculation. Plant height and number of leaves of soybean plants cultivated with the combination treatment of solid formulations and compost of soybean litter waste (A1C1) showed the best results, with plant height and number of leaves at 10 WAP are 49.37 cm and 26.53 sheets. Plants treated with Biofresh of solid formulation and organic matter soybean (A1C1) showed the best production with crop yields 261.00 pods, 644.33 seeds and 92.17 g seed weight. Organic matter in a solid formulations that is applied with organic matter of soybean litter waste can increase the growth and sustainability of soybean and soybean crop yields.


Copyright © 2016
By Authors and International Network for
Natural Sciences (INNSPUB)
This article is published under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0

Effect of Biological Agents (Biofresh) and Organic Matter to Progress of Soybean Mosaic Virus (SMV) and Yield of Soybean in Sub-Optimal Ultisol Land

Ademir SF, Araújo ASF, Leite LFC, Santos VB, Carneiro RFV. 2009. Soil microbial activity in conventional and organic agricultural systems. Sustainability 1, 268-276, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su1020268.

Ait-Kaki A, Kacem-Chaouche N, Ongena M, Kara-Ali M, De-himat L, Kahlat K, Thonart P. 2014. In vitro and in vivo characterization of plant growth promoting Bacillus strains isolated from extreme environments of Eastern Algeria. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 172, 1735–1746.

Cho EK, Chung BJ, Lee SH. 1977. Studies on identificationand classification of soybean virus disease in Korea. II. Etiologyof a necrotic disease of Glycine max. Plant Disease Report 61, 313–317.

Cooke BM. 1998. Disease bassessment and yield loss. In: Jones DG, Ed. The Epidemiology of Plant Diseases. London, UK: Kluwer., 42-47.

Demski JW, Jellum MD. 1975. Single and double virus infection of soybean: plant characteristics and chemical composition.Phytopathology 65, 1154–1156.

Dhingra KL, Chenulu VV. 1980. Effect of soybean mosaic virus on yield and nodulation of soybean cv. Bragg. Indian Phytopathology 33, 586–590.

El-Amrety AA, El-Said HM, Salem DE. 1985. Effect of soybean mosaic virus infection on quality of soybean seed. Agricultural Research Review 63, 155– 164.

El-Borollosy AM, Oraby MM. 2012. Induced systemic resistance against Cucumber mosaic cucumovirus and promotion of cucumber growth by some plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Annals Agriculture Sciences 57(2), 91-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2012.08.001.

Giesler LG. 2010. Soybean Mosaic Virus. Extension Services, University of Nebrask.

Han YH, Daiki M. 1970. Studies on Soybean Mosaic Virus I. Separation of Virus Strains by Differential Hosts.Journal of Faculty Agriculture Hokkaido University 56, 3.

Hassan MN, Osborn AM, Hafeez FY.2010. Molecular and biochemical characterization of surfactin producing Bacillus species antagonistic to Colletotrichum falcatum Went causing sugarcane red rot. African Journal of Microbiology Research 4(20), 2137–2142.

Hassan MN, Sahar N, Ul-Husnain Shah SZ, Aghan S, Hafeez FY. 2015. Suppression of red rot disease by Bacillus sp. Based biopesticide formulated in non-sterilized sugarcane filter cake. BioControl 60, 691–702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10526-015-9673-4.

Jusoh MLC, Manaf LA, Latiff PA. 2013. Composting of rice straw with effective microorganisms (EM) and its influence on compost quality.Iranian Journal ofEnvironmental Health Science and Engineering 10(1), 17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1735-2746-10-17.

Kuroda T, Nabata K, Hori T, Ishikawa K, Natsuaki T. 2010. Soybean leaf rugose mosaic virus, a new soilborne virus in the family Potyviridae, isolated from soybean in Japan. Journal of General Plant Pathology 76, 382–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10327-010-0272.

Khaeruni A, Sutariati GAK, Wahyuni S. 2010. Characterization and Activity Test ofRhizobacteria from Ultisol Land as Stimulate Plant Growth and Biological Agents of Soil Borne Pathogen Fungi by In-Vitro. Journal of Tropical Plant Pests and Diseases 10(2), 123-30.

Khaeruni AT, Wijayanto GAK, Sutariati, Asniah, Sulqifly. 2015. Improvement of Resistense Agents Pathogens, Grow and Yield of Soybean on Marginal Land Using Indigenous Rhizobacteria Formulation Recen Advance in Mathemathicall and Computational Methods. P. 194-200. Proceeding of WSEAS Conference. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, April 23-25 2015.

Kloepper JW. 1993. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria as biological control agents. In: F.Blaine Metting Jr, Ed. Soil Microbiology Ecology, Applications in Agricultural and Environmental Management. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 255-274.

Kwon SJ, Jin HC, Lee S, Nam MH, Chung JH, Kwon SI, Ryu CM, Park OK. 2009. GDSL lipase-like 1 regulates systemic resistance associated with ethylene signaling inArabidopsis. Plant Journal 58(2), 235–245.

Meyer CN, Lee KC, Moore CA, Wong SM, Carr JP. 2005. Salicylic Acid-Induced Resistance to Cucumber mosaic virus in Squash and Arabidopsis thaliana: Contrasting Mechanisms of Induction and Antiviral Action. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 18(5), 428-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-18-042.

Ross JP. 1969. Effect of time and sequence of inoculation of soybean with soybean mosaic and bean pod mottle viruses on yields and seed characters. Phytopathology 59, 1404–1408.

Shoresh M, Yedidia I, Chet I. 2005. Involvement of jasmonic acid/ethylene signaling pathway in the systemic resistance induced in cucumber by Trichoderma asperellum T203. Phytopathology 95(1), 76–84.

Tailor AJ, Joshi BH. 2014. Harnessing plant growth promoting rhizobacteria beyond nature: a review. Journal of Plant Nutrition 37(9), 1534–1571.

Thakuria DNC, Talukdar C, Goswami S, Hazarika RC, Boro Khan MR. 2004. Characterization and screening of bacteria from rhizosphore of rice grown in acidis soils of assam. Current Science 86(7), 978–985.

Van der Ent S, van Hulten M, Pozo MJ, Czechowski T, Udvardi MK, Pieterse CM, Ton J. 2009. Priming of plant innate immunity by rhizobacteria and b-aminobutyric acid: differences and similarities in regulation. New Phytologist 183(2), 419–431.


Style Switcher

Select Layout
Chose Color
Chose Pattren
Chose Background