Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T20:34:00.255Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The influence of the number of nodule bacteria applied to the seed upon nodule formation in legumes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. G. Thornton
Affiliation:
(Department of Bacteriology, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden.)

Extract

In a field trial with lucerne grown from seed treated with varying doses of culture it was found that the numbers of nodules were increased as the dose was raised from 2,500 to 20,000 organisms per seed (56 to 7 Ib. of seed per culture). Storing the seed for periods up to 28 days between inoculation and sowing, caused some loss in the nodule numbers. This loss was greatest between 1 and 7 days' storage.

The difference in dose of culture and in period of storage did not significantly affect the crop subsequently obtained from the inoculated plots, whose yield was, however, much above the uninoculated.

In a pot experiment made with runner beans, it was found that increase in the dose of culture above 1,280,000,000 organisms per pot containing six seeds was still capable of increasing nodule numbers but not to an extent proportional to the increase in dose.

The experiment does not exclude the possibility that the restriction in effect of very heavy doses may be due to the soil population becoming saturated with the bacteria. On the other hand, observations on lucerne plants grown aseptically on agar and inoculated with a pure culture, showed that even when excessive numbers of the bacteria immediately surrounded the root hairs, only 4 per cent, of these were infected.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1929

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1)Perkins, A. T.J. Agric. Res. (1925), 30, 95.Google Scholar
(2)Thornton, H. G. and Gangulee, N.Proc. Roy. Soc. Ser. B (1926), 99, 427.Google Scholar
(3)Henderson Smith, J.Annala of Applied Biol. (1921), 8, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Fisher, R. A., Thornton, H. G. and Mackenzie, W. A.Annals of Applied Biol. (1922), 9, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar