Next Article in Journal
Multi-Site Evaluation of Accumulated Temperature and Rainfall for Maize Yield and Disease in Loess Plateau
Previous Article in Journal
Extraction of Arecanut Planting Distribution Based on the Feature Space Optimization of PlanetScope Imagery
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/agriculture11040372
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Connecting Bio-Priming Approach with Integrated Nutrient Management for Improved Nutrient Use Efficiency in Crop Species

by
Deepranjan Sarkar
1,
Amitava Rakshit
1,*,
Ahmad I. Al-Turki
2,
R. Z. Sayyed
3,* and
Rahul Datta
4,*
1
Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221005, India
2
Department of Plant Production and Protection, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Qassim University, P.O. Box 6622, Buraidah 51452, Saudi Arabia
3
Department of Microbiology, PSGVP Mandal’s, Arts, Science & Commerce College, Shahada 425409, India
4
Department of Geology and Pedology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemedelska 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2021, 11(4), 372; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11040372
Submission received: 4 March 2021 / Revised: 3 April 2021 / Accepted: 13 April 2021 / Published: 20 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Production)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The increasing demand for qualitative and varietal foods by the consumer society is a big concern for energy production, and utilization of that energy in a judicious manner for sustainable management of resources is a big challenge in the eminent future. Existing resources (land, water, fertilizer, etc.) and their socioeconomic aspects warrant the farming community to adopt alternative strategies aimed at enhancing the use efficiency of inputs and improve the environmental quality. The adaptability of microbes to thrive in different environments has prompted scientists to introduce microbial intervention in the agricultural processes. Bio-priming has the potential to fulfill many objectives of the modern production system with the use of beneficial microorganisms in an eco-friendly manner. Interestingly, it also plays a crucial role in enhancing the nutrient use efficiency of crops. There is rising evidence of a paradigm shift from the use of a single microbe to a consortium approach for efficient rhizosphere engineering in the context of sustainable agriculture. Our understanding of different signaling cascades, rhizosphere chemistry, and other mechanisms of plant–microbial interactions will frame suitable strategies to harness the best ecosystem services including improved resource use efficiency.

1. Introduction

The production system of the agriculture sector is highly influenced by the fertilizer industry (huge energy-intensive sector) and escalating energy prices [1,2]. Our dependency on energy extracted from fossil fuels has tremendously increased, which is evident from the energy involvement during the production of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) fertilizers, consuming approximately 60.6, 11.1, and 6.7 MJ/kg energy, respectively [3,4]. The subsidy policy in this sector has resulted in indiscriminate production and use of fertilizers, neglecting the management principles of nature conservation. Consequently, the natural resource base has been impaired, especially affecting the soil system through accelerated nutrient depletion, salinity, acidity, erosion, etc. [5,6]. Further, low use of organic amendments and secondary nutrients and micronutrients have aggravated the fertility of soils. Nutrient mining is in practice to an extent that cereal crops remove about 20 to 30 kg N, 4 to 8 kg P, and 18 to 40 kg K for producing one tonne of grains [7]. The balance sheet comprising the addition and removal of nutrients presents a negative nutrient budget in the majority of the Indian soils [8]. Among crop plants, the nutrient use efficiency is found to be <50% in most agro-ecological regions [9]. Standing on such a situation, i.e., the huge crisis of energy and declining nutrient use efficiency in the modern agricultural systems, it is apprehended that both energy requirement and nutrient use efficiency are scientific tools to evaluate the performance or efficiency of our production system.
A number of pre-sowing seed treatment technologies, namely, priming, pelleting, and coating, were developed to improve the quality of seed and its performance under different growth conditions [10]. These involve the introduction of seeds with physical, chemical, and biological agents to stimulate their germination and overcome all germination-related problems [11,12]. The phenomenon of priming is executed by giving an initial stimulus of an eliciting factor to plants to sharpen their “stress memory” so that they remain prepared to defend themselves during future stress events [13,14,15]. Future stress is referred to different biotic and abiotic stresses that a plant may encounter in different growth stages. Seed priming, by definition, is a pre-germination physiological method in which the seed is treated with natural and synthetic compounds to partially activate the process of germination [16,17]. A plethora of such methods have been established and categorized on the basis of priming agents used. Basically, they emphasize the conditioning of seeds achieved by soaking the seeds in water (hydropriming), osmotic solutions or solutions of low water potential composed of polyethylene glycol (PEG) (osmopriming) or salts (KCl, NaCl, CaCl2, KH2PO4, CaSO4, etc.) (halopriming), plant growth hormones (hormonal priming), mineral nutrients (nutrient priming), solid or semisolid medium (solid matrix priming), prior to germination [17,18]. Biological priming or bio-priming has evolved as a new technique keeping in mind the environmental and economic concerns of priming agents in order to harness higher resource use efficiency [1,19]. The process of priming follows controlled imbibition in order to start the metabolic process of germination, but the actual germination and emergence of the seminal roots are prevented [11,20,21]. Other advanced seed technologies such as seed coating and seed pelleting are in the practice for improving the performance of seed by incorporating some physical modification in seed [22]. In seed coating, active ingredients such as plant growth regulators, nutritional elements, fungicides, insecticides, and other chemicals are applied to the seed surface using adhesive polymers without much alterations to its original shape or size, while seed pelleting emerged as an advanced form of this coating technology, in which the morphology is changed to a standard shape (mostly spherical or oval) during coating of seed in an inert material to smoothen the process of planting [22]. The complexity and cost effectiveness involved in seed coating mechanisms are important factors in popularizing seed priming interventions.
Existing scientific literature presents the evidence of the linkages among fossil fuel consumption, changing climate scenario, degradation of soil quality, and food and nutritional security has triggered the process of degradation of the natural resource base, marginal productivity, and low use efficiency of fossil-based inputs [2]. In order to achieve stability and sustainability in the agriculture production system, there is a high requirement for the adaptation of environmentally friendly technologies. The demands of India’s present population (1.37 billion) are satisfied with 283.37 million tonnes (Mt) food grains, but by 2025, the population is estimated to be 1.4 billion requiring a supply of more than 300 Mt food grain production. Thus, it is obvious that the consumption of nutrients (NPK) from fertilizers will increase (35–40 Mt) from the present rate (30 Mt), and an extra requirement of 10 Mt nutrients has to be fulfilled from organic sources and microbial resources [2]. In the present study, due care was taken to document the available information regarding the negative nutrient budget and bio-priming mediated nutrient use efficiency of crops.

2. Nutrient—An Energy-Intensive Sector

The relationship between agriculture and energy grew stronger with increasing populations, the decrease in the availability of arable land, and our constant desire to improve living standards. Categorizing the energy requirements of agricultural operations into direct (land preparation, intercultural operations, irrigation, harvesting, processing, and transportation) and indirect (manufacturing, packaging, and transportation of costly inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides) energy use give the detailed energy scenario in our production system [23]. In the Indian economy, the chemical fertilizer industry represents one of the most energy-intensive segments. Fertilizer production is dependent on energy derived from fossil fuels, e.g., natural gas, coal, oil, naphtha, etc. During the production of N, P, and K fertilizers about 60.6, 11.1, and 6.7 MJ/kg energy, respectively, is consumed [3,4]. For producing 1 tonne (t) urea, there is a need for four barrels (1 barrel = 190.932 L) of crude oil [24], and the production of two bags of urea burns 100 L of oil. These industries are gaining momentum after the liberalization and globalization policies of the government, coupled with the introduction of subsidy schemes (Rs 70,000 crore in 2017–18), generating huge investments in the sector [25]. The growth of Indian agriculture accelerated with the achievement of “self-sufficiency” in food grain production by supplying the essential nutrients to plants [1]. Looking at the present rate of energy expenditure, escalating energy prices, and dwindling natural resources, it is high time to perform an energy audit (input–output relationship) so as to analyze the efficiency of the resources and save the extra dosages of fertilizers and energy sources from being drainage.

3. Nutrient Mining

Mining of inherent nutrient reserves is a common phenomenon in soil mainly because of suboptimum and/or unbalanced application of plant nutrients. The term “nutrient mining” is applied “when the quantity of soil nutrients removed by a crop from an agricultural field exceeds the amount of the nutrient that is recycled back and/or replenished to the field” [8]. This is also known as a negative balance between nutrient input and output, which causes depletion of native soil fertility and eventually limits the crop yield. A considerable amount of plant nutrients is removed from the soil with the continuation of intensive cropping systems. The requirement for more chemical fertilizers is evident from the fact of progressive reduction in partial factor productivity of fertilizers, i.e., 13.4 (1970) to <3.5 kg grain/kg NPK (2010) [26]. In the earlier section (introduction), we have mentioned the nutrient mining capacity of cereals. Specifically, the consumption of N, P, and K nutrients in the production of 1000 kg grains is reported to be 14.6, 2.7, and 15.9 kg, respectively, for rice (Oryza sativa L.) [27] and 22.8, 4.4, and 19.0 kg, respectively, for wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) [28]. In the case of horticultural crops, the annual nutrient removal of N + P2O5 + K2O is stated to be 500–1000 kg [29]. Cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata L.) and cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis L.) remove 112 kg N, 28 kg P2O5, and 112 kg K2O, and 250 kg N, 100 kg P2O5, and 350 kg K2O, respectively, in one hectare of land. The nutrient balance equation is also favored toward the negative side by other factors causing loss of soil nutrients, e.g., volatilization, leaching, fixation, erosion, etc. Nutrient mining is also triggered by the adoption of faulty management practices including farmers’ fertilizer practices, which are mostly based on perception, N-driven, or peer-influenced, state recommendations establishing general ratio (4:2:1) for N, P2O5, and K2O application in most soils or crops, and other practices such as removal of crop residues from the fields and low application of organics (manures, biofertilizers) and micronutrients in soil (Figure 1) [30,31,32].

Nutrient Mining in Indian Soils

Agricultural soils of India are reported to have ~10 Mt annual nutrient (N + P2O5 + K2O) gaps [33], and the practice of rice–wheat system in the Indo–Gangetic Plains (IGP) alone estimated to cause an annual nutrient mining of ~20 Mt [34]. Subba Rao and Sammi Reddy [35] projected that the picture of the nutrient gap in the country may increase to 22 Mt in 2025. As per the balance sheet considering additions and removals, the positive balance has been found for N and P on a gross basis, while on a net basis, the negative NPK balance is common here [36]. The negative balance of 10 Mt is accounted for 19% N, 12% P2O5, and 69% K2O. Evaluating the NPK fertility status, Muralidharudu et al. [37] found 93% (for N), 91% (for P), and 49% (for K) soils of India were deficient in these macronutrients. The cases of widespread deficiency are also noted in secondary nutrient, e.g., sulfur (S) to the extent of 41% and micronutrients, e.g., zinc (Zn), boron (B), iron (Fe), molybdenum (Mo), manganese (Mn), and copper (Cu) to the tune of 48, 33, 12, 13, 5, and 3%, respectively [38]. The mismatch between removal and replenishment of nutrients was also apparent in the long-term studies of the rice–wheat system conducted in the IGP, mostly revealing the negative apparent balance of K [39]. Allocation of government subsidies for urea is >70% and only 35% for diammonium phosphate (DAP), tempting farmers to apply more urea, and consequently, there begins the imbalance in fertilizer use. This was reflected in multilocation cultivators’ field with major cropping systems, including Kaushambi of Uttar Pradesh showing 73.0, 6.4, and −150.0 kg/ha of apparent balance for N, P, and K, respectively, in the rice–wheat system [40]. Application of N often exceeds the recommended rates, P remains suboptimum or below recommendation, and K, secondary, and micronutrients are almost neglected. Negative nutrient balance (−31.5 N, −3.68 P, and −183.0 K kg/ha/yr) was observed in the pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.)−mustard (Brassica juncea L.) cropping system of Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh), even with the application of recommended NPK doses [41].

4. Nutrient Use Efficiency

The current global demand for fertilizer nutrient use is about 117 Mt of N, 45 Mt of P2O5, and 35 Mt of K2O [42]. The utilization rate or recovery of an applied nutrient is often low (Table 1). Rising prices of fertilizer, stagnation in crop prices, and increasing concerns about environmental degradation with nutrient loss have kept the fertilizer sector under tremendous pressure of enhancing nutrient use efficiency (NUE). The concept of NUE is gaining importance in evaluating the performance of crop production systems [26,43,44]. The primary goal of nutrient management is to provide optimum nutrition to the crops while minimizing the nutrient losses from the soil. Quantitative measurement of the nutrient uptake (amount) by the plant in respect to nutrient addition (amount) in the soil is defined as NUE. Various environmental factors such as soil dynamics (moisture content, leaching, fixation, runoff, fertility status, etc.), plant characteristics (nutrient absorbing capacity, age, cultivars, or root morphology), and climate (sunlight, precipitation) and management practices such as agronomy (selection of crop and variety, sowing time, tillage, irrigation, etc.), and nutrient management (selection, amount, time, and method of fertilizer application) affect NUE [9,45,46].
Fertilizer consumption in India has augmented from 0.70 Mt (1950–51) to 26.75 Mt (2015–16), where the share of N, P2O5, and K2O is 17.37, 6.97, and 2.40 Mt, respectively, depicting skewed nutrient application in the ratio of 7.23:2.91:1 [48]. Both imbalance and deficit in fertilizer application affect production levels of crops, while their use in larger quantities has economic issues, which could be saved if used optimally. Substantial cutting in nutrient requirements by adaptive farming practices will enhance the incomes of farmers by increased crop productivity and reduction in costly inputs [49,50]. Increasing the efficiency of nutrients by just 2–3% can save tonnes of fertilizers and huge investments (billions) annually at the national level. The coefficient of utilization is expressed on yield, recovery, or removal basis. From the farmer’s point of view, NUE is crop output (yield) per unit of nutrient input. Scientists have integrated the response of the production system with nutrient uptake or loss (Table 2). Thus, agronomic efficiency (AE), physiological efficiency (PE), apparent recovery efficiency (ARE), partial factor productivity (PFP), and partial nutrient balance (PNB) are common parameters of NUE to quantify the economic output in terms of nutrient resource utilization [51,52].
Agronomic efficiency is a short-term index of the effects of nutrient addition on the productivity of crops [43,54]. For extracting the long-term contribution of nutrient inputs to crop yield, there is a necessity of conducting long-term experiments that consider the fertilization history. The response of hybrid crops in AE was greater than non-hybrids to P and K applications in Tamil Nadu [55]. Increasing the rate of P2O5 application from 75 to 100 kg/ha enhanced 2.3 to 4.7 kg grain/kg P2O5 in non-hybrid rice, while in hybrid rice, it upsurged from 5.2 to 11.8 kg grain kg/P2O5. In cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), application of K2O at 150 kg/ha resulted in an increment of AE in hybrid variety (8.8 kg grain/kg K2O) than non-hybrid crop (5.9 kg grain/kg K2O). Implementation of ecological intensification in maize (Zea mays L.) resulted in AE of N (AEN) from 20.6 to 51.8 kg/kg with an average of 39.7 kg/kg in a five-year experiment (2009–2013) in China [52]. However, farmer’s practice failed to show this trend ranging from 9.5 kg/kg in 2009 to 39.3 kg/kg in 2013 with the average being 26.9 kg/kg, i.e., 32% lower than the sustainable ecological intensification practices. This is mainly due to the adoption of the high rate of fertilizer application without splitting the dose during the growing seasons. The AEN of cabbage was noticed to be 25.1 kg/kg at Chukalying in the Central Highlands of Kenya [56].
Physiological efficiency signifies the plant’s ability to convert the nutrients assimilated from the source (soil and fertilizer) into economic yield [51]. Looking at the ever-increasing costs of chemical fertilizers and their utilization pattern by the plants, integrated nutrient management is often adopted. Substitution of 50% recommended dose of nitrogen (RDN) and 25% RDN through farmyard manure (FYM) recorded higher physiological N use efficiency (PNUE) than 100% RDN through urea in a cotton-based cropping system of New Delhi [57]. Increasing the levels of N (i.e., 50, 100, and 200 kg/ha) application decreased the PNUE of rice genotypes remarkably in the fertile field of Pantnagar [58]. For the Krishna Hamsa genotype, the supply of above-stated N levels recorded 34.93, 28.59, and 20.93 PNUE.
Apparent recovery efficiency describing the number of nutrients taken up by the plant on the basis of the rate of nutrient addition is a good indicator of the potential loss of a nutrient in a cropping system or efficiency of the adopted management practice [43]. Global data of experimental plots on recovery of applied N by the crops showed 46% for rice, 57% for wheat, and 65% for maize [59]. Following the principles of the 4R Nutrient Stewardship, developed by the International Plant Nutrition Institute, is the key to minimizing nutrient losses and maximizing the NUEs. These include four basic aspects of nutrient management, i.e., right source, right rate, right time, and right place. The relationship between N use efficiency and water use efficiency is positive linear in nature [60,61]. Application of 80 kg N/ha in a sandy loam soil of Punjab enhanced N use efficiency when there was an assured supply of water up to 300 mm, but with 120 kg N/ha, the use efficiency of N remains unaffected under irrigation regimes of 50 and 125 mm. It increased markedly with an increased water supply of 300 mm. In general, the average N recovery efficiency in farmers’ fields is around 20–30% for rainfed regions and 30–40% for irrigated regions [62]. Phosphorus uptake by crops is less influenced by moisture regimes as compared to N and K; the placement of fertilizer has more impact on P uptake.
Partial factor productivity makes a comparison of yield in terms of the proportion of fertilizer input added [44]. It addresses the query “How productive is this cropping system in comparison to its nutrient input?” Over the years, worldwide data of PFP of N (PFPN) has reduced from 245 kg grain kg/N (1961–1965) to 52 kg grain kg/N (1981–85) in cereal production, and at present, it is ~44 kg grain kg−1 N [51]. Sustainable practices in maize cultivation in China increased PFPN from 48.1 to 69.7 kg/kg (average 62 kg/kg) within five years (2009–2013) of study [52].
Partial nutrient balance is the ratio of the number of nutrients taken out or removed by the crop to the quantity of nutrient input added in soil [54]. A five-year field experiment of rice conducted in Hyderabad showed positive and higher PNB of N and P in organic production systems over conventional systems [63]. Long-term trials of maize-based cropping systems, including cabbage, recorded positive partial balances for N, P, and K in organic high input systems; however, the balances were zero or negative for N and K in conventional high input systems of Kenya [64]. Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)–finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) crop rotation of thirteen years in rainfed Alfisols of Karnataka revealed greater PNB of N and P with conjunctive use of FYM at 10 t/ha and 50 or 100% NPK than the use of 100% NPK alone [65]. Biofertilizer (Pseudomonas striata + Glomus fasciculatum) application improved apparent P balance in the alluvial soil of New Delhi irrespective of the P sources (DAP, rock phosphate), even at 50% recommended dose of P in soybean (Glycine max L.)–potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cropping system [66].
Other available techniques for estimating NUE consider plant available nutrient converted to yield. Nitrogen use efficiency calculated from fresh matter yield per unit available N (above-ground total plant N + residual soil mineral N) showed 173.9 kg/kg in organically fertilized (lupine (Lupinus angustifolius L.) seedlings + seed meal) white cabbage grown in Ruthe (Germany) [67].

5. Bio-Priming Mediated Nutrient Use Efficiency

Microbial-assisted management of nutrients is a sustainable, cost-effective, and eco-friendly option under diverse agroecosystems (intensive, integrated, or organic systems). Such practices protect the environment from nutrient losses (runoff, denitrification) and pollution (eutrophication, land degradation). Rhizospheric interactions modulate root architecture, mobilize nutrients, and improves NUE [68,69]. Here, we have highlighted the role of primers in the enhancement of NUE in crops.

5.1. Nitrogen Use Efficiency

Fertilizer-dependent efficacy of primers in improving NUE is well reported. The recommended dose of NPK fertilizers (120:100:60) applied at 25, 50, 75, and 100% showed enhancement in N use efficiency in the manner of 115, 52, 26, and 27%, respectively over corresponding controls (uninoculated) in wheat crop, when the seeds were inoculated with Pseudomonas fluorescens for conducting a field experiment in Faisalabad, Pakistan [70]. Significantly greater apparent nitrogen recovery efficiency (23.19%) was noted in wheat grown in the alluvial soil of the IGP under pot culture when the seeds were bio-primed with Trichoderma harzianum strain BHU51, and fertilizer was applied in the manner of 3/4th N and full recommended dose of P and K, compared to the full recommended dose of NPK (120:60:60 kg/ha) or half N combined with full PK [68]. Duarah et al. [71] reported that a reduction in the dose of NPK fertilizer application and seed bacterization can considerably enhance the NUE (NPK).

5.2. Phosphorus Use Efficiency

Phosphorus is mostly fixed into the soil making complexes with different metals; solution P substantially decreases limiting its availability for plant uptake. The bacterial and fungal communities involved in improving P use efficiency have an important PGP trait known as P solubilization, i.e., they solubilize the unavailable or fixed P in the soils to available forms of P. Strains isolated from the soil are screened on the basis of their ability to solubilize P. Inoculation of wheat seeds with P. fluorescens and NPK fertilizer application at 25, 50, 75, and 100% recorded 102, 56, 57, and 21% enhancement in P use efficiency, respectively over corresponding uninoculated treatments in wheat field studies [70]. Seed priming with a conidial suspension of T. harzianum at 1 × 108 spores/mL significantly increased the P uptake of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) in a greenhouse study [72]. Compared to control, application of the bio-agent enhanced about 59% P uptake. Wheat seeds inoculated with several strains of Bacillus spp. at 108 to 109 CFU/mL under varying P-sources revealed higher grain P uptake with DAP application, compared to rock phosphate (RP) and RP-enriched compost both in pot (113 mg/pot) and field (3.82 g m−2) conditions [73]. The study also validated that plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) with dual PGP activities [P solubilization and ACC (1-aminocyclopropane 1-carboxylic acid) deaminase activity] are better in improving P use efficiency of P fertilizer than PGPRs possessing a single PGP trait. Kaur and Reddy [74] reported that the seed inoculation with P solubilizing bacteria (Pseudomonas plecoglossicida and Pantoea cypripedii) and RP fertilization resulted in a profound effect on P uptake of wheat and maize in the organic field of Punjab. Utilization efficiency of P in chili (Capsicum annuum L.) was enhanced (4–29%) when phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB) was added at 108 CFU/mL by root dipping method [75].

5.3. Potassium Use Efficiency

Fodder maize showed higher uptake (40.5 kg/ha) of K with the addition of Bacillus mucilaginous as biological K fertilizer through seed coating method and application of a full dose of NP (120:90 kg/ha) than the alone application of full NP (K uptake: 30.9 kg/ha) in rainfed conditions [76]. Seed treatment with T. harzianum isolates increased 62% uptake of K in sunflower grown in greenhouse conditions [72]. Bacterial isolates (Pseudomonas orientalis, Rahnella aquatilis, and Pantoea agglomerans) isolated from Iranian soils containing mica and illite minerals proved their K solubilizing ability by augmenting the K use efficiency in terms of AE, PE, ARE, etc. in rice grown under pot conditions [77]. Application of 50% K fertilizer along with the isolates increased all the NUE parameters except PE, which showed increment with all the isolates when the chemical fertilizer was not applied. Physiological efficiency varied among the isolates (with and without fertilizer treatment) in the following order: Pantoea sp. (32.99 and 128.20 g/g) > Pseudomonas sp. (27.70 and 89.54 g/g) > Rahnella sp. (35.89 and 81.73 g/g). Agronomic efficiency was found to be highest (20.67 g g−1) with Pantoea sp. + 50% K fertilizer treatment. Maize seeds bio-primed with suspensions of K solubilizing bacteria (Agrobacterium tumefaciens) at ~108 cell/mL showed a positive influence on K uptake in the alluvial soil of Varanasi located under the IGP region [78].

5.4. Bio-Priming Mediated Use Efficiency of Other Nutrients

Root dipping of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) seedlings in liquid containing T. harzianum at 11.90 × 106 CFU/mL enhanced the mineral content (Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu) of fruits [79]. Entesari et al. [80] observed bio-priming of soybean seeds with rhizospheric fungi (Trichoderma sp.) prior to sowing improved the micronutrient status of crop (Table 3). Seedling roots of broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. italica L.) inoculated with suspensions of Bacillus cereus at 108 CFU/mL for 1 h prior to transplanting and application of manure and RP enhanced the leaf nutrient concentrations of Mn and Zn to the tune of 36.4% and 56.7%, respectively, in farm soil of Anatolia, Turkey [81]. The micronutrient concentrations of cabbage seedlings were considerably influenced by B. subtilis TV-17C, especially in Fe (36.6 µg/g) and Mn (4.29 µg/g) content [82]. Pal and Singh [83] documented higher Fe (6.39 mg kg−1), Mn (0.13 mg/kg), Zn (0.263 mg/kg), and Cu (0.197 mg/kg) content in okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench] fruits when 10% of chemical fertilizers were supplemented with seed priming with T. harzianum NBRI 1055 in pot culture conducted in Varanasi. Full dose of N:P2O5:K2O applied at 120:120:75 kg/ha recorded 5.76 mg/kg Zn, 0.11 mg/kg Mn, 0.189 mg/kg Zn, and 0.152 mg/kg Cu. Recently, a field experiment involving seedling bio-priming with P. fluorescens and B. subtilis and 75% of recommended NPK fertilizer dose recorded improved Fe and Zn content in red cabbage [Brassica oleracea var. capitata f. rubra (L.) Thell] heads [84]. A partial list of different primers that influence the NUE in crops is presented in Table 3.

6. Effect of Bio-Priming and Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) on Key Soil Functions Essential for Nutrient Cycling

6.1. Microbial Activity

Biological activity in soil is an index of the microbial population in soil along with their physiological efficiency. Higher microbial activity (biomass C, respiration, and urease activity) is noted in soil receiving organics + mineral fertilizers in comparison to fertilizers alone [86,87]. Dinesh et al. [88] studied the microbial variables of clay loam soil under three nutrient management regimes in turmeric cultivation, namely, integrated nutrient management (NPK + FYM), organic nutrient management (FYM + vermicompost + neem cake + ash + Azospirillum sp. + Bacillus sp.), and chemical nutrient management (NPK). About 29% and 31% higher soil biomass C, 16% soil respiration, and 29% and 27% higher dehydrogenase activity were recorded in organic nutrient management and integrated nutrient management, respectively, in comparison to chemical nutrient management. Soil biomass C increased from 285 to 314 mg/kg by increasing the levels (50–150%) of NPK, while integrating FYM with optimal amounts of NPK enhanced the biomass (346 mg/kg) by 16% than the optimal NPK (299 mg/kg) in an Inceptisol [89]. The microbial population also increased by increasing the NPK levels up to 150% (68 × 106 bacteria/g soil; 13 × 104 fungi/g soil) and an integrated approach (100% NPK + FYM) led to the highest population (76 × 106 bacteria/g soil; 14 × 104 fungi/g soil) in fodder cowpea rhizosphere. Mäder et al. [90] observed that application of root microorganisms in a consortium (Glomus intraradices, Pseudomonas jessenii, and Pseudomonas synxantha) improved soil quality in terms of soil enzyme activities (dehydrogenase, urease, and alkaline and acid phosphatase) in low-input areas of India (Uttarakhand, Uttarakhand, and Haryana). Rock phosphate application in combination with seed bio-inoculant (Pseudomona splecoglossicida) significantly enhanced the rhizospheric bacterial population (3.8 × 108 to 5.2 × 108 CFU/g soil) of wheat from the first year to the second year as compared to absolute control (2.0 × 106 to 2.4 × 106 CFU/g soil) and seed inoculation with Pantoea cypripedii + RP treatment (3.6 × 108 to 4.9 × 108 CFU/g soil) in loamy texture soil of Punjab [74]. This might be due to altered root exudation and availability of substrate (RP) for microbial proliferation (Figure 2). Metagenomic analysis revealed that sustainable agricultural practices or organic intervention enhanced richness, decreased evenness, and altered the microbial community composition or microbiota structure of soil when compared with conventional systems [91,92].

6.2. Soil Fertility

Inefficient management of nutrients can also cause low fertility of the soil. An efficient integrated approach can contribute a lot toward improving the nutrient status of the soil. Narayanamma et al. [93] observed an increase in available NPK in postharvest soil of cauliflower with the application of biofertilizers. Soil fertility in cabbage growing soil of West Bengal was evaluated by Sur et al. [94] under INM practices. They found that the application of organic manure at 4 t/ha instead of 10 t/ha was sufficient to produce desirable effects in soil. Fertilization of NPK at 150:26:66 kg ha−1 + organic manure at 4 t/ha + Zn at 0.5 kg/ha increased the status of pH (7.56 to 7.60), organic carbon (0.80 to 0.96%), available N (398.70 to 400.86 kg/ha), and available K (354.98 to 358.22 kg/ha) during the two-year study period; a slight decrement was noted in available P (15.43 to 15.39 kg/ha). The treatment also enhanced the status of cationic micronutrients (e.g., Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu) in the soil (new alluvial). Bacillus megaterium, when added with sugar beet residue, recorded an improvement in total organic carbon and N contents under Lavandula dentata L. (a small shrub) cultivation, by 39% and 38%, respectively [95]. Seed inoculation (Pseudomonas plecoglossicida and Pantoeacypripedii), along with RP fertilization, resulted in the increase of organic carbon (28 to 48%) and available P (86 to 147%) in wheat soil from the first year to the second year [74]. This might be due to enhanced microbial biomass carbon and the release of organic acids (Figure 2) for P solubilization or chelation of cations by acid groups (hydroxyl and carboxyl). Microbial consortium (Bacillus subtilis + Bacillus sp.), along with 100% chemical fertilizers (254 kg N/ha, 77 kg P2O5/ha, and 350 kg K2O/ha), resulted in the highest available N (284.2 kg/ha), available P (50.4 kg/ha), and available K (285.8 kg/ha) in a capsicum field trial conducted in sandy loam soil of Solan, Himachal Pradesh [96]. Nutrient status under the integrated system of B. subtilis showed 272.1 kg N/ha, 48.3 kg P/ha, and 284.2 kg K/ha; Bacillus sp. recorded 273.9 kg N/ha, 48.7 kg P/ha, and 284.5 kg K/ha; and 100% NPK without microbes showed 255.7 kg N/ha, 43.6 kg P/ha, and 283.8 kg K/ha. Seed inoculation with PSB recorded higher organic C (5.0 g/kg), available N (252 kg/ha), available P (34.5 kg/ha), and available K (335 kg/ha) in postharvest soil of mustard (Brassica juncea L.) over uninoculated plots (4.5 g/kg, 250 kg/ha, 32.7 kg/ha, and 335 kg/ha, respectively) in sandy loam soil [pH 8.10, electrical conductivity (EC) 0.79 dS/m] of Udaipur located in Rajasthan [97]. The inoculated plots showed lower pH (7.71) and EC (0.41 dS/m) than uninoculated plots (pH 7.85, EC 0.43 dS/m). Sandy clay loam soil under the pearl millet-mustard system showed maximum available N (253 kg/ha) and P (32.3 kg/ha) status in 100% NPK + FYM + Azotobacter + PSB treatment, while removal of FYM from this management practice led to 206 kg N/ha and 27.1 kg P/ha [41]. The available P in calcareous soil of China increased by 7.21% in a Chinese cabbage field experiment due to inoculation of PSB (B. cereus YL6) [98]. Secretion organic acids and phosphatases by YL6 have dissolved the insoluble P in soil. Maize field studies including B. subtilis (107 cell density/mL) + 80% NP and 100% NPK (60 kg N ha−1, 30 kg P2O5 ha−1, and 20 kg K2O/ha) + FYM recorded higher nutrient status (304.90 kg N/ha, 32.80 kg P/ha, and 334.12 kg K/ha) in the microbial treatment than the nonmicrobial treatment (271.71 kg N/ha, 26.40 kg P/ha, and 319.38 kg K/ha) applied in sandy loam soil of Solan [99].

7. Economics and Energy Approaches in Integrated Nutrient Management

Seed bio-priming is emerging as a common method of inoculation as soil application requires a higher proportion of bio-inoculants contradicting the economic profitability of the farming systems. The application of biofertilizers increased the benefit–cost ratio (B:C) from 1.95 to 2.96 in cauliflower cultivation [93]. Bacillus mucilaginous, applied as biological potassium fertilizer through seed coating method and a full dose of NP fertilizer, recorded higher net return in maize cultivation than application of full NPK and full NP [76]. Net returns in cauliflower–cauliflower–pea system followed the order of 100% NPKB + FYM (Rs 462883/ha/year) > 50% NPKB + FYM + Biofertilizers (Rs 213401/ha/year) > 50% NPKB + FYM (Rs 208253/ha/year) in on-farm trials of Himachal Pradesh [100]. Economic verification of the cabbage field trial in Pantnagar (Uttarakhand) recorded a higher B:C ratio and net benefit only in fertilization treatments; the insignificant contribution of FYM may be ascribed to poor decomposition rate in the winter season [101]. Target yield (250 q/ha) based fertilization gave a better economic response over general fertilizer recommendations. Although gross return and net return in soybean–potato cropping system was significantly higher in 100% recommended dose of P + biofertilizers (Pseudomonas striata + Glomus fasciculatum), net B:C ratio was significantly superior in both doses (50% and 100%) of recommended P applied through DAP [66].
Sustainable agriculture requires proficient management of energy inputs. Input–output energy efficiency in apple production was studied in Iran by Fadavi et al. [23]. Estimation of energy input (101,505 MJ/ha), energy productivity (0.23 MJ/ha), net energy (−56,320 MJ/ha), and output–input energy (0.44) revealed that the energy requirements in apple orchards were mostly from the indirect (71%) and nonrenewable (96.7%) sources, indicating the necessity of alternative energy resources for increasing the efficiency. Mihov and Tringovska [102] documented that biofertilizer application in greenhouse tomato cultivation augmented the total energy input (100.30 GJ/ha), total energy output (119.48 GJ/ha), energy productivity (0.99 kg/MJ), and energy output–input ratio (1.19) than the control or conventional fertilization (98.45 GJ/ha, 90.52 GJ/ha, 0.77 kg/MJ, and 0.92 kg/MJ, respectively). Wheat production in Iran generated total energy inputs of 47.08 GJ ha−1 or 47,078.50 MJ/ha, in which the contribution of chemical fertilizers is ~31.19% for energy equivalents of 14,653.67 MJ/ha and FYM is ~9.71% for energy equivalents of 4574.68 MJ/ha [103]. Calculation of total energy output and energy output–input ratio showed 92,785.56 MJ/ha and 1.97, respectively. The total energy input (2632.4 MJ/ha) in sesame production of north-central Nigeria is mainly generated by human labor (637.0 MJ/ha) and organic manure (555.0 MJ/ha) energy equivalents of 24.2% and 21.1%, respectively [104]. The energy output and use efficiency ratios were estimated as 13,750.0 MJ and 5.2, respectively. Energy saving of 970 to 1670 KJ was found in okra production with the adoption of bio-priming treatments using T. harzianum (NBRI 1055) in comparison to 100% chemical fertilizers consuming about 4320 KJ/unit [83]. Seed bio-priming, in combination with 70, 75, 80, and 90% chemical fertilizers, consumed 2650, 2840, 3005, and 3350 KJ energy/unit, respectively.

8. Nutrient Kinetics Involved in Integrated Nutrient Management

The utilization of mineral fertilizers, biofertilizers, manures, or composts is dependent on our understandings of the mineralization pattern of nutrients. Laboratory incubation experiments with kinetic models are common tools to study the mineralization–immobilization of a nutrient in cycles of soil. The total N mineralization was about 45–48% greater in integrated nutrient management involving NPK + FYM and organic nutrient management involving FYM + vermicompost + neem cake + ash + Azospirillum sp. + Bacillus sp. in comparison to chemical nutrient management [88]. Integrated addition of organic manures (compost, vermicompost), and NPK fertilizers resulted in higher C and N mineralization rates than soil amended with organic manures or treated with 100% chemical fertilizers [105]. Amino acids are considered as a potential plant-available N source [106]. Mineralization of C and N increased with the advancement of the incubation period, but the rate was higher only during the initial stages. The alluvial soil of New Delhi falling under the IGP showed greater mineralization of N as per the first-order exponential model when treated with RP-enriched composts in comparison to 100% NPK fertilizers [107]. Studying the mineralization or release capacity of soluble P fertilizers (single superphosphate, DAP) and insoluble RP, Abbasi et al. [75] found that the initial (0 days) P release of soluble P fertilizers was very high and mineralization over a period of 60 days recorded decrement of 73.3 to 13.5 mg P/kg in single superphosphate and 68.4 to 14.1 mg P/kg in DAP, and it remained around 6.2 mg P/kg in RP. No significant effect was noticed on P mineralization with the combination treatments of RP and soluble P fertilizers; however, the addition of PSB and RP released 9.8 mg P/kg, and the best result (24.2 mg P/kg) was found when poultry manure was added to the treatment (PSB + ½ RP + ½ poultry manure). Farm soil (clayey loam) of Nagaland showed an increase in available P status under incubation (90 days) with the addition of PSB (B. polymyxa) in conjunction with different P sources (single superphosphate, RP); nevertheless, the higher values were detected with RP [108]. Soil rhizobacteria play a significant role in nutrient uptake and promote plant growth [109,110,111,112,113]. Furthermore, biostimulants as foliar application reduce the fertilizer requirements in crops [114,115,116,117,118].

9. Conclusions

There is growing advocacy and interest in the use and popularity of bio-agents as a supplement within the framework of integrated plant nutrition systems apart from its added routine biotic stress moderation. Application of bio-inoculant as a primer is a well-demonstrated mechanism in synergizing a stimulus in the rhizosphere, which facilitates biochemical nutrient cycling, enzymology, and partitioning/translocating, which, in turn, improves crop performance under a changing climate regime. Being a pragmatic technology with indigenous competitive values, the farm validation under multilocational trials is going to be a gigantic task facing technical challenges in the feasibility and scaling up of this small intervention. Sensitization regarding the storage/viability of microbes is also another prerequisite for the success of this technology. Further, multidisciplinary research is required on the issues of consortium priming based on metagenomics studies and a wide range of suitability under variable climate and environment. These have been a renewed interest in the form of seed bio-priming as a supplement in integrated nutrient management possibly by the marriage of biology and chemistry, which will definitely trigger consistent and promising performance of crop under a wide array of conditions.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, D.S.; conceptualization, supervision, and writing—review and editing, A.R.; writing—review and editing, A.I.A.-T., R.Z.S. and R.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

D.S. is thankful to Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India, for providing the PhD Research Fellowship.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rakshit, A.; Sunita, K.; Pal, S.; Singh, A.; Singh, H.B. Bio-Priming Mediated Nutrient Use Efficiency of Crop Species. In Nutrient Use Efficiency: From Basics to Advances; Rakshit, A., Singh, H.B., Sen, A., Eds.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2015; pp. 181–191. [Google Scholar]
  2. Rakshit, A. Impact Assessment of Bio Priming Mediated Nutrient Use Efficiency for Climate Resilient Agriculture. In Climate Change and Agriculture in India: Impact and Adaptation; Sheraz Mahdi, S., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 57–68. [Google Scholar]
  3. Singh, K.P.; Prakash, V.; Srinivas, K.; Srivastva, A.K. Effect of tillage management on energy-use efficiency and economics of soybean (Glycine max) based cropping systems under the rainfed conditions in North-West Himalayan Region. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 100, 78–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tuti, M.D.; Prakash, V.; Pandey, B.M.; Bhattacharyya, R.; Mahanta, D.; Bisht, J.K.; Kumar, M.; Mina, B.L.; Kumar, N.; Bhatt, J.C.; et al. Energy budgeting of colocasia-based cropping systems in the Indian sub-Himalayas. Energy 2012, 45, 986–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rattan, R.K. Soil processes and climate change. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2014, 62, S5–S24. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sarkar, D.; Rakesh, S.; Ganguly, S.; Rakshit, A. Management of increasing soil pollution in the ecosystem. Adv. Res. 2017, 12, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dhawan, A.S. Soil quality in relation to agricultural sustainability: A road map ahead. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2014, 62, S70–S77. [Google Scholar]
  8. Sanyal, S.K.; Majumdar, K.; Singh, V.K. Nutrient management in Indian agriculture with special reference to nutrient mining—A relook. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2014, 62, 307–325. [Google Scholar]
  9. Baligar, V.C.; Fageria, N.K. Nutrient Use Efficiency in Plants: An Overview. In Nutrient Use Efficiency: From Basics to Advances; Rakshit, A., Singh, H.B., Sen, A., Eds.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2014; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  10. Taylor, A.G.; Allen, P.S.; Bennett, M.A.; Bradford, K.J.; Burris, J.S.; Misra, M.K. Seed enhancements. Seed Sci. Res. 1998, 8, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ashraf, M.; Foolad, M.R. Pre-sowing seed treatment—A shotgun approach to improve germination, plant growth, and crop yield under-saline and non-saline conditions. Adv. Agron. 2005, 88, 223–271. [Google Scholar]
  12. Afzal, I.; Rehman, H.U.; Naveed, M.; Basra, S.M.A. Recent Advances in Seed Enhancements. In New Challenges in Seed Biology–Basic and Translational Research Driving Seed Technology; Araújo, S., Balestrazzi, A., Eds.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2016; pp. 47–74. [Google Scholar]
  13. Tanou, G.; Fotopoulos, V.; Molassiotis, A. Priming against environmental challenges and proteomics in plants: Update and agricultural perspectives. Front. Plant Sci. 2005, 3, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Balmer, A.; Pastor, V.; Gamir, J.; Flors, V.; Mauch-Mani, B. The ‘prime-ome’: Towards a holistic approach to priming. Trends Plant Sci. 2015, 20, 443–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, X.; Liu, F.; Jiang, D. Priming: A promising strategy for crop production in response to future climate. J. Integr. Agric. 2017, 16, 2709–2716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jisha, K.C.; Vijayakumari, K.; Puthur, J.T. Seed priming for abiotic stress tolerance: An overview. Acta Physiol. Plant 2013, 35, 1381–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lutts, S.; Benincasa, P.; Wojtyla, L.; Kubala, S.; Pace, R.; Lechowska, K.; Quinet, M.; Garnczarska, M. Seed Priming: New Comprehensive Approaches for an Old Empirical Technique. In New Challenges in Seed Biology—Basic and Translational Research Driving Seed Technology; Araújo, S., Balestrazzi, A., Eds.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2016; pp. 1–46. [Google Scholar]
  18. Paparella, S.; Araújo, S.S.; Rossi, G.; Wijayasinghe, M.; Carbonera, D.; Balestrazzi, A. Seed priming: State of the art and new perspectives. Plant Cell Rep. 2015, 34, 1281–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sarkar, D.; Rakshit, A. Safeguarding the fragile rice–wheat ecosystem of the Indo-Gangetic Plains through bio-priming and bioaugmentation interventions. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2020, 96, fiaa221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ibrahim, E.A. Seed priming to alleviate salinity stress in germinating seeds. J. Plant Physiol. 2016, 192, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hussain, M.; Farooq, M.; Lee, D.-J. Evaluating the role of seed priming in improving drought tolerance of pigmented and non-pigmented rice. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2017, 203, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pedrini, S.; Merritt, D.J.; Stevens, J.; Dixon, K. Seed coating: Science or marketing spin? Trends Plant Sci. 2017, 22, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Fadavi, R.; Keyhani, A.; Mohtasebi, S.S. An analysis of energy use, input costs and relation between energy inputs and yield of apple orchard. Res. Agric. Eng. 2011, 57, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Sharma, R.B. Modern agriculture vis-à-vis natural resources and climate change. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2016, 64, S103–S114. [Google Scholar]
  25. Economic Survey. 2018. Available online: https://www.financialexpress.com/budget/economic-survey-2017-18-fertiliser-subsidy-idea-of-providing-income-support-to-farmers-floated-as-dbt-gets-delayed/1035606/ (accessed on 30 March 2021).
  26. Sharma, P.K. Nutrient-water management for sustainable soil health and crop productivity. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2016, 64, S27–S41. [Google Scholar]
  27. Buresh, R.J.; Pampolino, M.F.; Witt, C. Field-specific potassium and phosphorus balances and fertilizer requirements for irrigated rice-based cropping systems. Plant Soil 2010, 335, 35–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chuan, L.; He, P.; Jin, J.; Li, S.; Grant, C.; Xu, X.; Qiu, S.; Zhao, S.; Zhou, W. Estimating nutrient uptake requirements for wheat in China. Field Crop. Res. 2013, 146, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ganeshamurthy, A.N.; Kalaivanan, D.; Selvakumar, G.; Panneerselvam, P. Nutrient management in horticultural crops. Indian J. Fert. 2015, 11, 30–42. [Google Scholar]
  30. Dwivedi, B.S. Revisiting soil testing and fertilizer use research. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2014, 62, S40–S55. [Google Scholar]
  31. Majumdar, K.; Sanyal, S.K.; Dutta, S.K.; Satyanarayana, T.; Singh, V.K. Nutrient mining: Addressing the challenges to soil resources and food security. In Biofortification of Food Crops; Singh, U., Praharaj, C., Singh, S., Singh, N., Eds.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 177–198. [Google Scholar]
  32. Majumdar, S.; Prakash, N.B. Prospects of customized fertilizers in Indian agriculture. Curr. Sci. 2018, 115, 242–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Prasad, R. Sustaining Indian Agriculture (Souvenir 1905–2005); Indian Agricultural Research Institution: New Delhi, India, 2005; pp. 103–106. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sharma, S.K.; Tiwari, K.N. Proceedings of Fertilizer Association of India (FAI) Annual Seminar; FAI: New Delhi, India, 2004; p. SII-I/1-25. [Google Scholar]
  35. Subba Rao, A.; Sammi Reddy, K. Integrated nutrient management vis-à-vis crop production/productivity, nutrient balance, farmer livelihood in India. In Proceedings of the Regional Workshop, Beijing, China, 12–16 December 2005. [Google Scholar]
  36. Tandon, H.L.S. Soil nutrient balance sheets in India: Importance, status, issues, and concerns. Better Crop. India 2007, 1, 15–19. [Google Scholar]
  37. Muralidharudu, Y.; Sammi Reddy, K.; Mandal, B.N.; Subba Rao, A.; Singh, K.N.; Sonekar, S. GIS Based Soil Fertility Maps of Different States of India; AICRP-STCR, Indian Institute of Soil Science: Bhopal, India, 2011; pp. 1–224. [Google Scholar]
  38. Rattan, R.K. Soil—A Precious Resource. Indian Society of Soil Science (ISSS); Newsletter. September 2013; 33–35. [Google Scholar]
  39. AICRP-IFS (2006–07 to 2010–11). Annual Report of All India Coordinated Research Project on Integrated Farming Systems Research; Modipuram: Meerut, India, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  40. AICRP-IFS (2011–12). Annual Report of All India Coordinated Research Project on Integrated Farming Systems Research; Modipuram: Meerut, India, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tomar, P.S.; Verma, S.K.; Gupta, N.; Bansal, K.N. Effect of long-term integrated nutrient management on productivity of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum)-mustard (Brassica juncea) cropping system and soil fertility in an Inceptisol. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2018, 66, 295–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. FAO. World Fertilizer Trends and Outlook to 2020—Summary Report; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2017; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6895e.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2019).
  43. Fixen, P.; Brentrup, F.; Bruulsema, T.W.; Garcia, F.; Norton, R.; Zingore, S. Nutrient/Fertilizer Use Efficiency: Measurement, Current Situation and Trends. In Managing Water and Fertilizer for Sustainable Agricultural Intensification; Drechsel, P., Heffer, P., Magen, H., Mikkelsen, R., Wichelns, D., Eds.; International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA); International Water Management Institute (IWMI); International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI); International Potash Institute (IPI): Paris, France, 2015; pp. 8–38. [Google Scholar]
  44. Norton, R.; Snyder, C.; García, F.; Murrell, T.S. Ecological intensification and 4R nutrient stewardship: Measuring impacts. Better Crop. Plant Food 2017, 101, 10–12. [Google Scholar]
  45. Baligar, V.C.; Fageria, N.K.; He, Z.L. Nutrient use efficiency in plants. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2001, 32, 921–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Meena, S.K.; Rakshit, A.; Singh, H.B.; Meena, V.S. Effect of nitrogen levels and seed bio-priming on root infection, growth and yield attributes of wheat in varied soil type. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2017, 12, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Meena, V.S.; Meena, S.K.; Verma, J.P.; Kumar, A.; Aeron, A.; Mishra, P.K.; Bisht, J.K.; Pattanayak, A.; Naveed, M.; Dotaniya, M.L. Plant beneficial rhizospheric microorganism (PBRM) strategies to improve nutrients use efficiency: A review. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 107, 8–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pavithra, S.; Jumrani, J.; Pal, S. Role of optimal fertiliser use in boosting farm income. Indian J. Fert. 2017, 13, 16–24. [Google Scholar]
  49. Dubey, P.K.; Singh, G.S.; Abhilash, P.C. Adaptive Agricultural Practices: Building Resilience in a Changing Climate; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; p. 132. [Google Scholar]
  50. Dubey, P.K.; Singh, A.; Raghubanshi, A.; Abhilash, P.C. Steering the restoration of degraded agroecosystems during the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 280, 111798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dobermann, A. Nutrient use efficiency—Measurement and management. In Proceedings of the International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) International Workshop on Fertilizer Best Management Practices, Brussels, Belgium, 7–9 March 2007; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zhao, R.; He, P. Ecological intensification to increase nutrient use efficiency while maintaining yield levels: An example from China. Better Crop. Plant Food 2017, 101, 21–22. [Google Scholar]
  53. Dobermann, A. Nitrogen use efficiency—State of the art. In Proceedings of the International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) International Workshop on Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers, Frankfurt, Germany, 28–30 June 2005; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  54. Murrell, T.S. Principles of nutrient use efficiency of phosphorus and potassium. In Proceedings of the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) Symposium on Nutrient Use Efficiency at the XVIII Latin American Congress of Soil Science, San José, Costa Rica, 16–20 November 2009; pp. 18–23. [Google Scholar]
  55. Nagendra Rao, T. Improving nutrient use efficiency: The role of beneficial management practices. Better Crop. India 2007, 1, 6–7. [Google Scholar]
  56. Musyoka, M.W.; Adamtey, N.; Muriuki, A.W.; Cadisch, G. Effect of organic and conventional farming systems on nitrogen use efficiency of potato, maize and vegetables in the Central highlands of Kenya. Eur. J. Agron. 2017, 86, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Singh, R.J.; Ahlawat, I.P.S. Dry matter, nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium partitioning, accumulation, and use efficiency in transgenic cotton-based cropping systems. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2012, 43, 2633–2650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kumar, N.; Mathpal, B.; Sharma, A.; Shukla, A.; Shankhdhar, D.; Shankhdhar, S.C. Physiological evaluation of nitrogen use efficiency and yield attributes in rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes under different nitrogen levels. Cereal Res. Commun. 2015, 43, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Ladha, J.K.; Pathak, H.; Krupnik, T.J.; Six, J.; van Kessel, C. Efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen in cereal production: Retrospects and prospects. Adv. Agron. 2005, 87, 85–156. [Google Scholar]
  60. Gajri, P.R.; Prihar, S.S.; Arora, V.K. Interdependence of nitrogen and irrigation effects on growth and input-use efficiencies in wheat. Field Crop. Res. 1993, 31, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chaudhari, S.K. Soil, water and nutrient management in India: Future perspectives. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2005, 62, S95–S105. [Google Scholar]
  62. Roberts, T.L. Improving nutrient use efficiency. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2008, 32, 177–182. [Google Scholar]
  63. Surekha, K.; Satishkumar, Y.S. Productivity, nutrient balance, soil quality, and sustainability of rice (Oryza sativa L.) under organic and conventional production systems. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2014, 45, 415–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Adamtey, N.; Musyoka, M.W.; Zundel, C.; Cobo, J.G.; Karanja, E.; Fiaboe, K.K.M.; Muriuki, A.; Mucheru-Muna, M.; Vanlauwe, B.; Berset, E.; et al. Productivity, profitability and partial nutrient balance in maize-based conventional and organic farming systems in Kenya. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 235, 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Srinivasarao, C.; Ramachandrappa, B.K.; Jakkula, V.S.; Kundu, S.; Venkateswarlu, B.; Pharande, A.L.; Rupendra Manideep, V.; Prakash Naik, R.; Venkanna, K. Nutrient balance after thirteen years of organic and chemical nutrient management and yield sustainability of groundnut-fingermillet rotation in rainfed Alfisols of semi-arid India. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2014, 62, 235–247. [Google Scholar]
  66. Munda, S.; Shivakumar, B.G.; Rana, D.S.; Gangaiah, B.; Manjaiah, K.M.; Dass, A.; Layek, J.; Lakshman, K. Inorganic phosphorus along with biofertilizers improves profitability and sustainability in soybean (Glycine max)–potato (Solanum tuberosum) cropping system. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2018, 17, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Katroschan, K.U.; Uptmoor, R.; Stützel, H. Nitrogen use efficiency of organically fertilized white cabbage and residual effects on subsequent beetroot. Plant Soil 2014, 382, 237–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Meena, S.K.; Rakshit, A.; Meena, V.S. Effect of seed bio-priming and N doses under varied soil type on nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under greenhouse conditions. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2016, 6, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sarkar, D.; Pal, S.; Singh, H.B.; Yadav, R.S.; Rakshit, A. Harnessing bio-priming for integrated resource management under changing climate. In Advances in PGPR Research; Singh, H.B., Sarma, B.K., Keswani, C., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 349–363. [Google Scholar]
  70. Shaharoona, B.; Naveed, M.; Arshad, M.; Zahir, Z.A. Fertilizer-dependent efficiency of Pseudomonads for improving growth, yield, and nutrient use efficiency of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 79, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Duarah, I.; Deka, M.; Saikia, N.; Deka Boruah, H.P. Phosphate solubilizers enhance NPK fertilizer use efficiency in rice and legume cultivation. 3 Biotech 2011, 1, 227–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Nagaraju, A.; Sudisha, J.; Murthy, S.M.; Ito, S.I. Seed priming with Trichoderma harzianum isolates enhances plant growth and induces resistance against Plasmopara halstedii, an incitant of sunflower downy mildew disease. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2012, 41, 609–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Baig, K.S.; Arshad, M.; Shaharoona, B.; Khalid, A.; Ahmed, I. Comparative effectiveness of Bacillus spp. possessing either dual or single growth-promoting traits for improving phosphorus uptake, growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Ann. Microbiol. 2012, 62, 1109–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kaur, G.; Reddy, M.S. Role of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria in improving the soil fertility and crop productivity in organic farming. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2014, 60, 549–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Abbasi, M.K.; Musa, N.; Manzoor, M. Mineralization of soluble P fertilizers and insoluble rock phosphate in response to phosphate-solubilizing bacteria and poultry manure and their effect on the growth and P utilization efficiency of chilli (Capsicum annuum L.). Biogeosciences 2015, 12, 4607–4619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Jilani, G.; Akram, A.; Ali, R.M.; Hafeez, F.Y.; Shamsi, I.H.; Chaudhry, A.N.; Chaudhry, A.G. Enhancing crop growth, nutrients availability, economics and beneficial rhizosphere microflora through organic and biofertilizers. Ann. Microbiol. 2007, 57, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Khanghahi, M.Y.; Pirdashti, H.; Rahimian, H.; Nematzadeh, G.; Sepanlou, M.G. Potassium solubilising bacteria (KSB) isolated from rice paddy soil: From isolation, identification to K use efficiency. Symbiosis 2018, 76, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Meena, V.S.; Zaid, A.; Maurya, B.R.; Meena, S.K.; Bahadur, I.; Saha, M.; Kumar, A.; Verma, R.; Wani, S.H. Evaluation of potassium solubilizing rhizobacteria (KSR): Enhancing K-bioavailability and optimizing K fertilization of maize plants under Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 36412–36424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Molla, A.H.; Haque, M.M.; Haque, M.A.; Ilias, G.N.M. Trichoderma-enriched biofertilizer enhances production and nutritional quality of tomato (Lycopersicone sculentum Mill.) and minimizes NPK fertilizer use. Agric. Res. 2012, 1, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Entesari, M.; Sharifzadeh, F.; Ahmadzadeh, M.; Farhangfar, M. Seed biopriming with Trichoderma species and Pseudomonas fluorescent on growth parameters, enzymes activity and nutritional status of soybean. Int. J. Agron. Plant Prod. 2013, 4, 610–619. [Google Scholar]
  81. Yildirim, E.; Karlidag, H.; Turan, M.; Dursun, A.; Goktepe, F. Growth, nutrient uptake, and yield promotion of broccoli by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria with manure. HortScience 2011, 46, 932–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Turan, M.; Ekinci, M.; Yildirim, E.; Güneş, A.; Karagöz, K.; Kotan, R.; Dursun, A. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria improved growth, nutrient, and hormone content of cabbage (Brassica oleracea) seedlings. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2014, 38, 327–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pal, S.; Singh, H.B. Energy inputs and yield relationship in greenhouse okra production by bio-priming. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Biotechnol. 2018, 11, 741–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sarkar, D.; Rakshit, A. Bio-priming in combination with mineral fertilizer improves nutritional quality and yield of red cabbage under Middle Gangetic Plains, India. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 283, 110075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Meena, K.K.; Mesapogu, S.; Kumar, M.; Yandigeri, M.S.; Singh, G.; Saxena, A.K. Co-inoculation of the endophytic fungus Piriformospora indica with the phosphate-solubilising bacterium Pseudomonas striata affects population dynamics and plant growth in chickpea. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2010, 46, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Juan, L.I.; Zhao, B.Q.; Li, X.Y.; Jiang, R.B.; So, H.B. Effects of long-term combined application of organic and mineral fertilizers on microbial biomass, soil enzyme activities and soil fertility. Agric. Sci. China 2008, 7, 336–343. [Google Scholar]
  87. Sharma, U.; Subehia, S.K. Effect of long-term integrated nutrient management on rice (Oryza sativa L.)—Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) productivity and soil properties in North-Western Himalaya. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2014, 62, 248–254. [Google Scholar]
  88. Dinesh, R.; Srinivasan, V.; Hamza, S.; Manjusha, A. Short-term incorporation of organic manures and biofertilizers influences biochemical and microbial characteristics of soils under an annual crop [Turmeric (Curcuma longa L.)]. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 4697–4702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Selvi, D.; Santhy, P.; Dhakshinamoorthy, M.; Maheshwari, M. Microbial population and biomass in rhizosphere as influenced by continuous intensive cultivation and fertilization in an inceptisol. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2004, 52, 254–257. [Google Scholar]
  90. Mäder, P.; Kaiser, F.; Adholeya, A.; Singh, R.; Uppal, H.S.; Sharma, A.K.; Srivastava, R.; Sahai, V.; Aragno, M.; Wiemken, A.; et al. Inoculation of root microorganisms for sustainable wheat–rice and wheat–black gram rotations in India. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2010, 43, 609–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Hartman, K.; van der Heijden, M.G.; Wittwer, R.A.; Banerjee, S.; Walser, J.C.; Schlaeppi, K. Cropping practices manipulate abundance patterns of root and soil microbiome members paving the way to smart farming. Microbiome 2018, 6, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ray, P.; Lakshmanan, V.; Labbé, J.L.; Craven, K.D. Microbe to microbiome: A paradigm shift in the application of microorganisms for sustainable agriculture. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 622926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Narayanamma, M.; Chiranjeevi, C.H.; Reddy, I.P.; Ahmed, S.R. Integrated nutrient management in cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis L.). Veg. Sci. 2005, 32, 62–64. [Google Scholar]
  94. Sur, P.; Mandal, M.; Das, D.K. Effect of integrated nutrient management on soil fertility and organic carbon in cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) growing soils. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 80, 38–41. [Google Scholar]
  95. Mengual, C.; Schoebitz, M.; Azcón, R.; Roldán, A. Microbial inoculants and organic amendment improves plant establishment and soil rehabilitation under semiarid conditions. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 134, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Gupta, S.; Kaushal, R.; Spehia, R.S.; Pathania, S.S.; Sharma, V. Productivity of capsicum influenced by conjoint application of isolated indigenous PGPR and chemical fertilizers. J. Plant Nutr. 2014, 40, 921–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Solanki, R.L.; Sharma, M.; Indoria, D. Effect of phosphorus, sulphur and PSB on yield of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) and available macronutrients in soil. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2018, 66, 415–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ku, Y.; Xu, G.; Tian, X.; Xie, H.; Yang, X.; Cao, C. Root colonization and growth promotion of soybean, wheat and Chinese cabbage by Bacillus cereus YL6. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0200181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Sood, G.; Kaushal, R.; Chauhan, A.; Gupta, S. Effect of conjoint application of indigenous PGPR and chemical fertilizers on productivity of maize (Zea mays L.) under mid hills of Himachal Pradesh. J. Plant Nutr. 2018, 41, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Parmar, D.K. Yield, produce quality and soil health under vegetable cropping systems as influenced by integrated nutrient management in Mid-hill Zone of Himachal Pradesh. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2018, 62, 45–51. [Google Scholar]
  101. Pande, J.; Singh, S. Fertilizer recommendations based on target yield concept for cabbage grown in a Mollisol of Uttarakhand. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2016, 64, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Mihov, M.; Tringovska, I. Energy efficiency improvement of greenhouse tomato production by applying new biofertilizers. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 16, 454–458. [Google Scholar]
  103. Shahan, S.; Jafari, A.; Mobli, H.; Rafiee, S.; Karimi, M. Energy use and economical analysis of wheat production in Iran: A case study from Ardabil province. J. Agric. Technol. 2008, 4, 77–88. [Google Scholar]
  104. Ibrahim, H.Y. Energy inputs and crop yield relationship for sesame production in North Central Nigeria. J. Agric. Technol. 2011, 7, 907–914. [Google Scholar]
  105. Basak, B.B.; Biswas, D.R. Carbon and nitrogen mineralization in soil amended with value-added manures and fertilizers under varying temperature and soil moisture regimes. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2014, 62, 18–28. [Google Scholar]
  106. Formánek, P.; Rejšek, K.; Vranova, V.; Marek, M.V. Bio-available amino acids and mineral nitrogen forms in soil of moderately mown and abandoned mountain meadows. Amino Acids 2006, 34, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Moharana, P.C.; Biswas, D.R. Use of mineralization kinetics to estimate the potentially mineralizable nitrogen of rock phosphate-enriched composts-amended soil. J. Plant Nutr. 2018, 41, 1333–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Basha, I.J.; Singh, A.K.; Ao, E.; Gupta, R.C. Evaluation of Udaipur rock phosphate as phosphorus fertilizer in soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) grown on acid upland soils of Nagaland. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2018, 66, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Zafar-ul-Hye, M.; Naeem, M.; Danish, S.; Jamil Khan, M.; Fahad, S.; Datta, R.; Brtnicky, M.; Kintl, A.; Hussain, G.S.; El-Esaw, M.A. Effect of Cadmium-Tolerant Rhizobacteria on Growth Attributes and Chlorophyll Contents of Bitter Gourd under Cadmium Toxicity. Plants 2020, 9, 1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Zafar-ul-Hye, M.; Naeem, M.; Danish, S.; Fahad, S.; Datta, R.; Abbas, M.; Rahi, A.A.; Brtnicky, M.; Holátko, J.; Tarar, Z.H.; et al. Alleviation of Cadmium Adverse Effects by Improving Nutrients Uptake in Bitter Gourd through Cadmium Tolerant Rhizobacteria. Environments 2020, 7, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Adnan, M.; Fahad, S.; Zamin, M.; Shah, S.; Mian, I.A.; Danish, S.; Zafar-ul-Hye, M.; Battaglia, M.L.; Naz, R.M.M.; Saeed, B. Coupling phosphate-solubilizing bacteria with phosphorus supplements improve maize phosphorus acquisition and growth under lime induced salinity stress. Plants 2020, 9, 900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Danish, S.; Zafar-ul-Hye, M.; Fahad, S.; Saud, S.; Brtnicky, M.; Hammerschmiedt, T.; Datta, R. Drought Stress Alleviation by ACC Deaminase Producing Achromobacter xylosoxidans and Enterobacter cloacae, with and without Timber Waste Biochar in Maize. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Zafar-ul-Hye, M.; Tahzeeb-ul-Hassan, M.; Abid, M.; Fahad, S.; Brtnicky, M.; Dokulilova, T.; Datta, R.; Danish, S. Potential Role of Compost Mixed Biochar with Rhizobacteria in Mitigating Lead Toxicity in Spinach. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12159, Correction in Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 17111, doi:10.1038/s41598-020-73325-4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Abbas, M.; Anwar, J.; Zafar-ul-Hye, M.; Khan, R.I.; Saleem, M.; Rahi, A.A.; Danish, S.; Datta, R. Effect of Seaweed Extract on Productivity and Quality Attributes of Four Onion Cultivars. Horticulturae 2020, 6, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Izhar Shafi, M.; Adnan, M.; Fahad, S.; Wahid, F.; Khan, A.; Yue, Z.; Danish, S.; Zafar-ul-Hye, M.; Brtnicky, M.; Datta, R. Application of Single Superphosphate with Humic Acid Improves the Growth, Yield and Phosphorus Uptake of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in Calcareous Soil. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ullah, A.; Ali, M.; Shahzad, K.; Ahmad, F.; Iqbal, S.; Habib, M.; Rahman, M.; Ahmad, S.; Iqbal, M.; Danish, S.; et al. Impact of Seed Dressing and Soil Application of Potassium Humate on Cotton Plants Productivity and Fiber Quality. Plants 2020, 9, 1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Zarei, T.; Danish, S. Effect of micronutrients foliar supplementation on the production and eminence of plum (Prunus domestica L.). Qual. Assur. Saf. Crop. Foods 2020, 12, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Rafiullah; Khan, M.J.; Muhammad, D.; Fahad, S.; Adnan, M.; Wahid, F.; Alamri, S.; Khan, F.; Dawar, K.M.; Irshad, I.; et al. Phosphorus Nutrient Management through Synchronization of Application Methods and Rates in Wheat and Maize Crops. Plants 2020, 9, 1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Agriculture 11 00372 g001 550
Figure 1. A conceptual framework for negative nutrient balances and nutrient mining.
Figure 1. A conceptual framework for negative nutrient balances and nutrient mining.
Agriculture 11 00372 g001
Agriculture 11 00372 g002 550
Figure 2. A conceptual model of bio-priming for soil health management.
Figure 2. A conceptual model of bio-priming for soil health management.
Agriculture 11 00372 g002
Table
Table 1. Nutrient use efficiency in the agricultural ecosystems [2,26,47].
Table 1. Nutrient use efficiency in the agricultural ecosystems [2,26,47].
NutrientEfficiency (%)
Nitrogen30–50
Phosphorus15–20
Potassium50–60
Sulphur8–12
Zinc2–5
Iron1–2
Copper1–2
Manganese1–2
Boron2–3
Molybdenum2–5
Table
Table 2. Integrative indices and application of nutrient use efficiency. Source: [44,51,53].
Table 2. Integrative indices and application of nutrient use efficiency. Source: [44,51,53].
ParameterCalculationAssessment Typical Values for N in Cereals
Agronomic efficiency (AE)AE (kg/kg) = (Y − Y0)/FEconomic production (grain) gained or lost per unit of nutrient input10–30
Physiological efficiency (PE)PE (kg/kg) = (Y − Y0)/U − U0Yield gained or lost per unit of nutrient uptake30–60
Apparent recovery efficiency (ARE)ARE (%) = (U − U0)/F × 100Proportion of nutrient uptake per unit of nutrient input30–50
Partial factor productivity (PFP)PFP (kg/kg) = Y/FHow productive is this cropping system in comparison to its nutrient input?40–80
Partial nutrient balance (PNB)PNB (kg/kg) = U/FQuantity of nutrient being taken out of the field to the amount of nutrient input<1.0 = more supplied than removed;
>1.0 = more removed than supplied
Y = crop yield (harvested portion) in kg with applied nutrient in kg; Y0 = crop yield (harvested portion) in kg with no applied nutrient (control); F = amount of nutrient (fertilizer) applied in kg; U = nutrient uptake (kg) in harvested portion of the crop with applied nutrients (kg); U0 = nutrient uptake (kg) in harvested portion of the crop with no applied nutrient.
Table
Table 3. Nutrient use efficiency of crop species as influenced by the bio-priming intervention.
Table 3. Nutrient use efficiency of crop species as influenced by the bio-priming intervention.
CropPrimerExperimental ConditionsNutrient Use EfficiencyReference
MacronutrientMicronutrient
Fodder maizeBacillus mucilaginousFieldIncrease in N (11.20%), P (13.58%), and K (31.06%) uptake-[76]
WheatPseudomonas fluorescensFieldIncrease in N use efficiency (26%) and P use efficiency (57%)-[70]
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)Pseudomonas striata + Piriformospora indicaPotEnhanced P content (27.78%)-[85]
RiceStaphylococcus epidermidis + Pseudomonas aeruginosa + Bacillus subtilisPotIncrease in N (36.10%), P (104.76%), and K (102.20%) content-[71]
BroccoliBacillus cereusFieldEnhanced K (18.6%) contentEnhanced Mn (36.4%) and Zn (56.7%) content[81]
WheatBacillus spp.Pot and fieldIncrease in grain P uptake to 77% and 85% under pot and field conditions, respectively-[73]
TomatoTrichoderma harzianumFieldEnhanced K (20.62%) contentEnhanced Fe (33.84%), Mn (28.57%), Zn (54.54%), and Cu (23.07%) content[79]
SunflowerTrichoderma harzianumGreenhouse (25 ± 2 °C, 95% relative humidity)Increase in N (30%), P (59%), and K (62%) uptake-[72]
SoybeanTrichoderma harzianum BS1-1PotIncreased N (15.90%) contentIncreased Zn (8.23%) and Fe (57.83%) content[80]
Trichoderma virens As10-5PotIncreased N (31.17%) contentIncreased Zn (21.67%) and Fe (14.82%) content
MaizePseudomonas plecoglossicidaFieldEnhanced grain P (48.65%) uptake-[74]
CabbageBacillus megaterium TV-91CPotIncrease in N (17.95%), P (10.28%), and K (5.01%) contentIncrease in Fe (14.69%) and Mn (14.99%) content[82]
Bacillus subtilis TV-17CPotIncrease in N (10.26%), P (6.26%), and K (4.59%) contentIncrease in Fe (27.97%) and Mn (10.85%) content
ChiliPseudomonas stutzeri + Azospirillumbrasilense + Agrobacterium tumefaciensPotEnhanced P use efficiency (4–29%)-[75]
WheatTrichoderma harzianumPotHigher apparent N recovery efficiency (23.19%)-[68]
RicePseudomonas sp.PotHigher apparent K recovery efficiency (150.4%)-[77]
OkraTrichoderma harzianum NBRI 1055PotIncrease in N (49.18%), P (39.56%), and K (38.89%) contentIncrease in Fe (69.04%) content[83]
Red cabbage Pseudomonas fluorescens + Bacillus subtilisFieldIncreased P (0.37%) and K (2.84%) contentIncreased Fe (160.12 mg kg−1) and Zn (34.18 mg kg−1) content[84]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sarkar, D.; Rakshit, A.; Al-Turki, A.I.; Sayyed, R.Z.; Datta, R. Connecting Bio-Priming Approach with Integrated Nutrient Management for Improved Nutrient Use Efficiency in Crop Species. Agriculture 2021, 11, 372. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11040372

AMA Style

Sarkar D, Rakshit A, Al-Turki AI, Sayyed RZ, Datta R. Connecting Bio-Priming Approach with Integrated Nutrient Management for Improved Nutrient Use Efficiency in Crop Species. Agriculture. 2021; 11(4):372. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11040372

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sarkar, Deepranjan, Amitava Rakshit, Ahmad I. Al-Turki, R. Z. Sayyed, and Rahul Datta. 2021. "Connecting Bio-Priming Approach with Integrated Nutrient Management for Improved Nutrient Use Efficiency in Crop Species" Agriculture 11, no. 4: 372. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11040372

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop