R325 - Effect of Different Rate of Azotobacter ... - Agrisciences.com

Effect of Different Rates of Azotobacter and Frequency
of Application of Agrispon on Yield and Quality in the
Growing of Onion (Allium cepa L.) in Cajamarca
THESIS
(As a requirement) To Obtain the Professional Title of:
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER
Presented by Bachelor
Gloria González Zeña
Cajamarca–Peru 1986
National University of Cajamarca Facility of Agricultural Sciences and Forestry
SPECIALTY OF AGRICULTURE
TRANSLATED FROM SPANISH BY COMPUTER
R325 4/05/02

INDEX
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
INTRODUCTION
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX
ii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Vegetables are grown for their sources of high quality nutriments, their short growth period, quick assimilation and
better use of soil. Uses exist in various species that take advantage of their leaves, stalks, bulbs, fruits, and flowers.
One of the most important vegetables due to income and their great popularity in consumption is the onion (Allium
cepa) which contributes to dietary nutrients, vitamins (A, B, C), proteins, minerals, and carbohydrates.
However, to raise the yield per area, one faces a series of problems: acquisition of certified seed; availability of
chemical fertilizers, fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides, which causes the production costs to be too high. An
alternative solution to these problems would be to diminish or to avoid the use of synthetic fertilizers; which is the
reason for the present investigation on the utilization of certain bacteria that are nitrogen fixers. One of these
bacteria, the Azotobacter spp.,a symbiotic aerobic bacteria, works in diverse cultivations such as potato, carrot
wheat, etc. and has obtained satisfactory results.
Likewise, biostimulants exist that hasten assimilation and increase conservation and are used as a complement in
order to obtain an increase in yield weight and quality.
Having considered aforementioned, it was decided to initiate the present work with the following objectives:
1. Determine the effect of three rates of Azotobacter spp. on the yield and quality.
2. Determine the effect of Agrispon on the yield and quality.
3. Determine the interaction of Azotobacter-Agrispon.
4. To carry out an economic study of the treatments.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The cultivated onion originated in the South West portion of Asia. It was known in Egypt in 3,000 B. C., and is not
found in its wild state (CÁCERES, E. 1982).
It is a monocodaledan, biannual species, cultivated as an annual, with a short fibrous root of white color, short and
fasculated reduced to a conical disk at the base of the plant, in vegetative state, that reaches heights of 1-1.5 m.
Leaves consist of two parts; veined and sheathed, these are attached to the base of the area with foliate veining
concentrically aligned, which constitute most of the fleshy bulb and skin, the inferior part of each sheath is a thin
tube that form the neck of the bulb, flowers gathered in an inflorescence compact type umbrella (MESSIAEN, C.
1979) (TISCORNIA R. 1974). The bulb contains crystallized sugar that gives a sweet flavor and a volatile oil of
intense scent that will cause the tear ducts excite (TAMARO, D. 1977).
1

Table 1. Chemical Composition of Onion (100g fresh product)
Determination
Unit
Water and cellulose 86.10%
Calcium
0.34 mg
Potassium
0.17 mg
Sodium
0.016 mg
Phosphorus
0.045 mg
Chlorine
0.021 mg
Sulfate
0.07 mg
Proteins 1.60%
Fat 0.50%
Hydrates of Carbon 11.60%
It also contains a large amount of vitamin A, and a satisfactory quantity of both vitamin B and C. Their energy
value is 0.45 calories per gram (TISCORNIA, R. 1974).
The onion requires a temperate warm climate for its development, but the ideal condition is cool temperatures in the
initial phase of development and warm toward maturity. Good temperatures are considered to be from 12° to 24°C
(CÁCERES E. 1982). Thusly it is considered that the best growth of the cultivation is obtained with temperatures
around 16° to 18°C, also, in temperate climates they need temperatures above 20°C to form bulbs (MESSIAEN, C.
1979).
The cultivation is affected strongly by day length and length of photo-period. Some varieties grown in temperate
areas don't develop bulbs completely in tropical areas, or even in subtropical areas; they are very developed
vegetatively but need days with 15 hours of sun light for bulb development (MORTENSEN, E. 1967).
The most desirable soils are calcareous, sandy, loose and aerated; in tight soils small, non-commercial bulbs are
developed; onions don't tolerate soil already low in organic matter or purin (TAMARO, D. 1977).
Checking results of the application of fertilizer nitrogen (75 kg/ha) shows a statistically superiority to control
treatment (00 kg/ha), in that yields of 45,708 kg/ha and 30,312 kg/ha of onions were achieved in Red Arequipeña
onions (SILVA, A. 1982).
Likewise, using the same variety as control, a yield of 7,271 kg/ha was obtained, bulb diameter averaged 6.66 cm,
and a high statistical significance (95 and 99%) existed among characteristic of diameter of bulb vs. yield (RED, C.
1977).
For nitrogen incorporation into the soil, one of the most important microorganisms is the aerobic bacteria
Azotobacter, discovered by the Dutch microbiologist Beijerinck, which are characterized as heterotrophic.
(BONNER, J, 1973), (BURGES, J.)
In the mature state, the bacteria are an oval shape, which may be for accumulation of big globules of fat. Most have
a more or less rigid membrane that represents 20-25% of the dry matter of the microorganism; some of the
membranes seem to be formed mainly by lipoproteins, in others by mucoproteins. Free living organisms prefer
rizospheres of well-aerated soils; they feed on organic compounds synthesized by autotrophic organisms and
healthy plants (BURGES, A. 1971), (BURDON, K. 1971).
These bacteria use and oxidize organic matter: they spend energy in part liberated in the process of substratum
oxidation in the processes of nitrogen reduction (BONNER, J. 1973); they take nitrogen directly from the air which
combines inside the cellular plasma which is liberated in the form of nitrates (BURDON K. 1971). Neither starch
nor the other polysaccharides are used. It grows well in the presence of nitrogen generating substances like nitrates,
ammonium salts or urea, but if these substances are abundant, they don't fix atmospheric nitrogen (JAMES. W.
1967).
2

Azotobacter also enriches the soil with another necessary element, phosphorus. Whereas the polysaccharides of the
bacteria seem to play the most important roll in the formation of the structure of the soil, especially in degrumos
formation: the most appropriate pH for the development of the bacteria is 7 to 8, the lower limit is 6. There are a
few bacteria that exist in lower pH such as the genus Beijerinckia that produce acids in the cultivations, tolerating
pH as low as 3.5, these forms are “acid resistant" (BURDON, K. 1971), (MILLAR, C. 1964), (BURGES, A. 1971).
These bacteria are found in the soil and after isolation they multiply in laboratory by two means of growth, one solid
and another liquid. The growing of the bacteria is carried out by making grooves in each of the petri dishes, after
having developed for 48 hrs on the solid material they multiply in a culture liquid. Then they are sterilized in an
autoclave at 15 lb. of pressure and 120 O C for 15 minutes, then allowed to incubate at 30 O C for 96 hours after which
respective observations are carried out for the purpose of verifying the characteristics indigenous of the bacteria
(CHAINS, A. 1985).
Inoculations with Azotobacter improve plant growth in the fields from 50 and 70% with 20% increases in yield
achieved (BLACK C. 1975).
Using Azotobacter spp. potato yield has been increased by 33.3% and 38.3%. This increase takes place when the
bacteria at rates of 30 cf are combined with a low rate (50 kg/ha) and nil (00 kg/ha) of nitrogen respectively. When
combining with a medium rate (100 kg/ha) and high rate (150 kg/ha) of nitrogen, the increase in yield is only 3.8%
(CASTRO A. 1979).
In an experiment carried out with the Red variety Arequipeña where nitrogen levels and inoculation of Azotobacter
spp. were considered, there was no statistical significance supporting the use of both factors. The same result is
obtained for the interaction of Nitrogen and Azotobacter; however, the combination (A 1 N 1 ) low rates of nitrogen
(50 kg/ha) and an inoculation of Azotobacter to the onion plants (250 g/ha) provided the highest yield at 8,313.33
kg per hectare. At the same time, when comparing the inoculated treatment and the unfertilized control, the
inoculant is superior at 1,187 kg per hectare to the control, which demonstrates the importance of the Azotobacter
spp. (CADENILLAS, A. 1982).
Agrispon, is a biostimulant for use in agricultural and horticultural production: it is easily handled, stored and
applied. It is not toxic to plants, animals or people.
The mode of action of this product in the plant is: it stimulates the development of foliage, the development of roots,
flowering and fruiting, increases the fixation of nitrogen in the soil for bacteria, it reduces the consumption of
nitrogen use, it increases tolerance to lack of water under adverse conditions (AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS, 1983).
Table 2. Composition of Agrispon
Determinations Units
Cytokinins 10 ppm
Giberilins 1 ppm
Gibberellins are initially synthesized in very young leaves and later translocate into the region of the initial collar,
where they are absolutely necessary for its operation (BEAULIEU, R. 1973).
Gibberellins applied in small quantities to the soil or rosettes on the leaves and shafts of certain plants produces an
increase in height. In grains such as wheat, and corn, they also cause an increase in length of the leaves. In some
cases they also increase the fresh weight and dry weight. However it doesn't produce any effect on the growth of
the roots (BEN, J. 1964).
From the chemist's point of view, cytokinins are related to nucleic acids with precursor substances that act to
stimulate cell division in vegetative growth areas. No information exist about its transport, or its physiologic role in
plants, or on the production points areas, because of this, it is not possible to classify these substances as
phytohormones (BEAULIEU, R. 1973).
3

If a cytokinin is applied directly to the lateral yolk, inhibited by the active tip of the stem, the growth of the lateral
bud is stimulated. It is possible that cytokinins originate in the roots and rise in the organic solutes of the xylem, by
their presence it is deduced that there is a firm correlation between root growth and the upper portion parts of the
plants. An over abundance of roots causes the slow down in their growth, since this causes a reduction in the
concentration of the cytokinins in the organic solutes (WEIER, E. and STOCKING, R. 1980).
Foliar absorption is based on the process of diffusion of liquids through a semi-permeable membrane and is
selective in the sense that dissolved elements move to a less concentrated solution from a higher concentration,
(JUÁREZ, G. 1956).
It is believed that the entrance into the plant of nutrients applied to the foliage is through the discontinuities of the
epidermal. In the parallel layers of the epidermal cells of the leaves of many plants, there are pectin like substances
embedded in the cutinizadas area; these pectin like substances extend vertically starting from the surface going
toward the interior of the leaf constituting a continuous passage to the walls of the vascular extensions and directly
toward the vascular system of the leaf, and roots (CROCOMO, O and OTHERS, 1965).
Works exist that prove that the effectiveness of foliar absorption is closely related to the structure of the leaf,
species of the plant, leaves of the same plant and several parts of the same leaf can have an effect (ZIRENA, D.
1977).
In an experiment on onion production using Agrispon and Azotobacter, it was shown: That the treatment with
Azotobacter had a yield of 8,383 kg/ha, Agrispon 7,177 kg/ha and the control 8,115 kg/ha. In spite of this neither
the Azotobacter nor Agrispon showed statistical significance. Concluding that it is more advisable to use
Azotobacter spp. before Agrispon application, to obtain the best yields and also to be more economical
(CADENILLAS, A. 1985).
Building soil not only depends on factors that exists in smaller quantity, all of the factors need to be increased
proportionally when increasing any one factors until arriving at a maximum production; arriving at this maximum, a
new increase of a single factor without increasing the other factors causes a decrease in the yield. This is known as
the Law of Effectiveness of the Factors of Growth” (SELKE, W. 1968).
Chapter III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
1. Characteristic of the Experimental Field.
1.1. Location - This experiment was carried out in the Agricultural Experimental Center “La Victoria", at the
National University of Cajamarca, located 2,450 m.s.n.m., latitude 0:07 (11 ' S: longitude 78 O 20' W: with
a dry temperate climate whose climatic characteristics (Averaged 1973-1984) are:
Maximum temperature: 21.4 O C, minimum temperature: 6.4 O C, median temperature: 13.3 O C, total
precipitation: 480.9 mm.
1.2. Climatic conditions during the development of the cultivation.
4

Table 3. Meteorological Data of September 1984 - June 1985
Temperature in °C H°R PP
Months Min Max Median % mm
1984
September 3.2 20.2 11.7 60.0 11.3
October 6.4 21.1 14.0 70.0 55.6
November 4.2 21.9 13.8 63.0 45.9
December 7.8 22.0 14.9 69.0 67.8
1985
January 7.4 20.9 14.1 78.0 11.8
February 8.3 20.9 14.5 75.0 46.2
March 7.3 23.1 14.9 74.0 25.2
April 7.2 22.3 14.8 78.0 43.6
May 5.0 21.7 13.3 73.0 41.3
June 3.6 21.8 12.7 61.0 6.1
Average 6.0 21.6 13.8 70.1 ∑= 354.8
Data provided by the National Service of Meteorology and Hydrology of Cajamarca (SENAMHI).
Table 3, shows the registered temperatures are within the ranges required for cultivation, precipitation
fulfills water requirements particularly in the final periods of development.
1.3. History of the Field – Crops grown in experimental work previous to the present trial:
-1982 - cauliflower
-1983 - corn, potato
-1984 - wheat, cabbage
1.4. Physical-chemical analysis of the soil - The analysis was carried out before planting, in the Soil Analysis
Laboratory of the National University of Cajamarca.
Table 4. Physical-chemical Analysis of the Soil
Determinations Average Method
Texture Fco. Loamy Hydrometer
Organic Matter % 2.73 Walkley-Black
Nitrogen total % 0.18 Microkjeldahl
Calcium total % 2.95 Deutrl. acid
Carbon % 1.58 Walkley-Black
P. available ppm 13.0 Microkjeldahl
K. available ppm 82.0 Fotómetro-Llam
pH of water 7.9 Potenciómetro
According to the above table the soil has a medium organic matter content, medium Nitrogen, Phosphorous
and Potassium that are below satisfactory levels required for the cultivation. It shows a slightly alkaline
pH, and the texture is within the ranges required by the cultivation and the bacteria.
2. Experimental material:
2.1. Seed - the Red variety Arequipeña was used. It adapts to the climatic conditions of the area with yields per
hectare of 8,000 - 40,000 kg. Diseases that affect this cultivation are: chupadera, mildew, rust, however,
diseases don't cause considerable damage.
2.2. Inoculant bacterial: The Azotobacter spp., obtained at the Laboratory of Soil Microbiology of the National
University of Cajamarca. Solid inoculant was used.
2.3. Biostimulant - Agrispon at rate of 1 per hundred (1%).
3. Other Materials:
5

3.1. Fertilizers - according to the soil analysis, 80 kg/ha of 46% urea nitrogen was applied.
3.2. Other Materials - petri dishes, Erlenmeyer flasks, test tubes pipette, stove, autoclave, winch, line stakes,
pick, shovel, rake, watering-can, fungicide, scale and ruler.
4. Study: Factors
4.1. Factor A: Azotobacter with 3 levels:
a 0 00 g/ha
a 1 250 g/ha
a 2 500 g/ha
4.2. Factor B: Agrispon with 3 application frequencies
b 0 00 application
b 1 1 application
b 2 2 applications
5. Treatment in Study:
Table 5. Relationship and Code for Treatments in Study
TREATMENTS
No Code Inoculant g/ha Agrispon application
1 a 0 b 0 00 00
2 a 0 b 1 00 1
3 a 0 b 2 00 2
4 a 1 b 1 250 00
5 a 1 b 1 250 1
6 a 1 b 2 250 2
7 a 2 b 0 500 00
8 a 2 b 1 500 1
9 a 2 b 2 500 2
10 Control 00 00
6. Experimental Design.
The design “Completely Random Block” was used with factorial arrangement of 3A x 3B which 10
treatments including a control with 4 repetitions per treatment.
7. Characteristic of the Experimental Field:
7.1. Blocks:
Long 24 m
Wide 4 m
Area 96 m 2
7.2. Parcels:
Number 10
Long 4 m
Wide 2.4 m
Area 9.6 m 2
Outline of the Experimental Field:
6

Figure 1. Outline of distribution of the treatment in the Experimental Field
19 m
1.0 m
4m
I
II
III
IV
3
8
1
5
2.4 m
5
1
6
10
5
1
6
10
8
2
5
8
7
6
10
1
10
4
8
7
24 m
4
7
3
9
6
5
2
4
9
9
4
3
2
10
9
6
1
3
7
2
7.3. Furrows:
Number 4
Long
4 m
Wide
0.6 m
No. of plants 40 plants
Area 2.4 m 2
7

7.4. Rows
Number 3
Long 24 m
Wide 1 m
Area 24 m 2
7.5. Areas:
Area net experiment 384 m 2
Area total experiment 456 m 2
8. Conducting of the Experiment:
8.1. Laboratory Phase - That understood: isolations identification and propagation: was carried out by the staff
of the laboratory of Microbiology of the Soil.
8.2. Phase of the Field:
8.2.1. Seedbed – Seedbeds were laid out 10 square meters by 25 cm. deep, with a mixture of sand, soil
and, manure in a proportion of 1:2:1 respectively: seed beds were established with shovel and
rake.
Planting was carried out 27 September, 1984, into straight furrows with spaced at approximately
10 cm 1 cm deep and covered a small layer of fluffed substrate, a heavy watering was applied and
the area was covered with an tarp. 160 g of seed was used.
8.2.2. Final Land Preparation:
Land preparation was done with a tractor, the land was worked, leveled, and the experiment area
was marked prior to furrowing. The furrow depth was 0.60 m.
8.2.3. Transplantation: was carried out 62 days after planting at 0.20 m spacing between plants, root
pruning was done to encourage root regrowth.
8.2.4. Fertilization: took place at 22 days prior to transplanting, using the formula 80-00-00 kg/ha of
NPK, treatment 10 (control) was not fertilized. Urea Nitrogen (46%) was used, placing in
continuos line at the bottom of the furrow then covered with a layer of soil.
8.2.5. Inoculation - was carried out 22 days prior to transplanting, rates of the inoculant, stated before,
and was mixed with fine sand for an easier handling of the bacteria. The inoculation was carried
by making small holes approximately 5 cm from the plant, the inoculant was placed in the hole
and covered with soil.
8.2.6. Application of the Agrispon - The biostimulant application was made twice, the first at 55 days
before transplant, the second at 120 days before transplant, according to the quantities on Table
No. 4.
8.2.7. Irrigation - 3 watering was carried out, at 21, 38 and 75 days after transplant, all other needed
water was supplied through rainfall.
8.2.8. Weeding - 4 manual weedings; at the 36, 50, 109 and 147 days from transplanting.
8.2.9. Sanitary control - In Almácigo no disease was present, however, the biggest problem present in
the defined field was a heavy attacks of “Mildew” (Peronospora destructor) at 40 days after
transplant, the intensity was determined to be 75%. For control, Tecto 60 was applied each week
for 3 weeks at a rate of 1.5 g/l of water, applied to the foliage.
8.2.10. Emergence of the bulb - occurred in general at 153 days of transplant, for all the treatments.
8.2.11. Bending of the Shaft - occurred at 168 days of transplant, in general, for all the treatments.
8.2.12. Harvests - was carried out at 198 days of transplant, when two thirds of the foliage had dried off.
The two middle furrows of each treatment were harvested.
8

9. Evaluations:
9.1. Before the Crop.
9.1.1. Emergence in almácigo -Began at 8 days with 10% of plants, concluding at 13 days. The process
consisted of evaluating the quantity of plants that broke the surface of the soil at 8 days.
9.1.2. Taking of transplants – when the transplants amounted to 99%. This was determined by counting
the dead plants then subtracting them from the total transplant and using the resulting quantity to
determine a percentage.
9.1.3. Plant height– Measurements were taken every 15 days by determining the distance from the neck
to the apex, these measurements was suspended when the leaves withered as a result of the
“Mildew” attack.
9.2. Harvest - All the evaluations were on 20 plants taken at random from the 2 middle furrows.
Evaluated for the following:
- Root length – done with a graduated ruler.
- Bulb diameter – Done with a bernier.
- Weights of bulbs – weights were taken from 20 plants taken randomly from the middle furrows,
then the remainder of the furrows were weighed.
Outlines of the evaluations:
- Root length,
- Bulb diameter.
9

Chapter IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In this Chapter the corresponding Statistical Analysis is presented, expressed in tables, figures referred to averages,
as well as the Economic Analysis corresponding to each treatment.
Blocks
Table 6. Yield in kilograms for harvested area (4.80 m 2 ) for the factorial 3a x 3b + control
Total
A 0 A 1 A 2
of
b 0 B 1 b 2 b 0 b 1 b 2 b 0 b 1 b 2 Blocks Control
Total of
blocks
+
control
I 10.40 12.80 8.40 11.84 22.40 11.20 12.80 9.20 12.80 101.84 9.40 111.240
II 9.44 9.60 12.28 8.72 11.60 13.60 12.00 12.80 13.60 103.64 8.00 111.640
III 11.60 10.00 11.60 12.00 12.00 13.20 l0.80 11.20 9.40 101.80 8.224 110.024
IV 9.20 9.20 9.80 11.04 10.80 12.00 10.00 12.80 12.40 97.24 7.200 104.440
AB 40.64 41.60 42.08 43.60 46.80 50.00 45.60 46.00 48.20 404.52 32.824 437.344
A A 0 = 224.32 A 1 = 140.40 a 2 = A 2 = 139.80 404.52 437.344
B b 0 = 129.84 b 1 = 134.40 b 2 = b 2 = 140.28 404.52 437.344
Table 7. Analysis of Variance (ANVA) for the treatments of the factorial 3A x 3B with 1 control
F
F.V. G.L. S.C. C. M. Fc 0.05 0.01
Blocks 3 3.3377 1.1126 0.54 NS 2.96 4.60
Treatments 9 53.2833 5.9204 2.88* 2.25 3.14
Treat. Vs. Control 1 33.0658 33.0658 16.11** 4.21 7.68
Factorial 3Ax3B 8 20.2176 2.5272 1.23 NS 2.30 3.26
Azotobacter (A) 2 13.8488 6.9244 3.37* 3.35 5.49
Fun. lineal 1 9.9846 9.9846 4.86* 4.21 7.68
Fun. cuadrát. 1 3.8642 3.8642 1.88 NS 4.21 7.68
Agrispon (B) 2 4.5656 2.2828 1.11 NS 3.35 5.49
Fun. Lineal 1 4.5414 4.5414 0.21 NS 4.21 7.68
Fun. cuadrát. 1 0.0242 0.0242 0.01 NS 4.21 7.68
A x B 4 1.8032 0.4508 0.22 NS 2.73 4.11
A L B L 1 0.0012 0.0012 0.001 NS 4.21 7.68
A L B Q 1 0.0067 0.0067 0.003 NS 4.21 7.68
A Q B L 1 0.1064 0.1064 0.05 NS 4.21 7.68
A Q B Q 1 0.0123 0.0123 0.005 NS 4.21 7.68
Error 27 2.0521
Total 39 112.0274
C. V. = 13.10 %
As can be seen, the Coefficient of Variability is inside the ranges specified for investigational works in the field.
In the Analysis of Variance (Table 7) we find that statistical significance doesn't exist between blocks probably not
to factors, specified (illegible text).
For the Agrispon treatments, statistical significance doesn't exist. Nevertheless, when observing the square means
of the components, it is noticed that the applications have a lineal tendency that is to say that the yields increase as
the applications of the biostimulant increases. Although it is necessary to notice that these increases are in a very
10

small increment, it is decidedly possibly that the structure of the leaf has influenced the foliate absorption. This is in
line with CADENILLAS, A. (1985) who didn't find statistical significance with Agrispon in onion cultivation Var.
Red Arequipeña that confirmed results obtained by ZIRENA, D. (1977) who indicates that the factors that influence
absorption to foliage are related with the structure of the leaf, vegetable species, the leaves of the same plant and
several parts of the same leaf.
For the Azotobacter treatment and their lineal function, significance exists at a 5% level of probability, which
indicates that the yields increase as the rate of Azotobacter increases, until a maximum yield is obtained from which
it will then start to diminish. This reaffirms results obtained by CADENILLAS, A. (1982) who says that statistical
significance doesn't exist for the Azotobacter factor although it has a yield of 8,313.3 onions/ha kg, demonstrating
the importance of the Azotobacter spp. in the onion cultivation.
It is also observed that in the factorial 3A x 3B compared to the control, a high statistical significance exists,
because the treatments of the factorial one has been influenced by the factors in studies Azotobacter and Agrispon
that have contributed to elevate yields, which has not happened to the control.
Table 8. Yields in kilograms for hectare adjusted according to the equation
Ŷ = 134.195 - 0.0026 X for the factor Azotobacter (A)
Yields
Azotobacter kg/4.80 m 2 kg/ha
a 0 11.1829 23,297.7083
a 1 11.2371 23,410.6250
a 2 11,2912 23,523.3333
23600
Figure 2. Effect of Azotobacter on the Yield of Onion with
Statistical Significance.
Yield Kg/Ha
23500
23400
23300
Ŷ = 134.195 - 0.0026 X
Ŷ = 134.195 - 0.0026 X
23200
23100
a a1 a2
Azot. g/Ha
Table 8 and figure 2, shows the effect of Azotobacter. Yield increases on-a straight line and proportional to the
increase of the application rate, which is adjusted to a lineal regression, and allows for the following equation: Y =
134.195 - 0.0026 X from which is deduced that when the Azotobacter is increased by 1 gram, the yield increases
0.0026 kg/parcel. We can establish the great efficiency of the bacteria because every time the rates were increased
the yields increase, without establishing that point at which the curve starts to descend, affirming what VANCURA
and MANCURA said (1960) that the action of gibberillic acid caused by Azotobacter influences the yield and early
growth of the cultivation. Also, CHAVEZ, R. (1979) affirms that the inoculation of Azotobacter spp. produces an
11

increase in the yield of carrots, when it is combined with a low level of nitrogen as well as when the inoculation of
the bacteria is carried out without any nitrogen application, not establishing a good comparison for nitrogen level
application.
Table 9. Yield in kilograms per hectare for Agrispon (B)
Yields
Agrispon kg/4.80 m 2 kg/ha
b 0 10.8200 22,541.6667
b 1 11.2000 23,333.3333
b 2 11.6900 24,354.1667
24500
24000
Figure 3. Performance of Agrispon without significance in accordance
with Yield per hectare
Yield Kg/Ha
23500
23000
22500
22000
21500
b b1 b2
Agrispon Frequency.
Table 9 and figure 3, show the effect of the frequency of application of the biostimulant, it is noted that the yields
are increased as the application frequency increases, it is shown that from b 1 (0 applications) to b 2 (1 application),
there is a difference of 791.66 b2 kg/ha to b 3 the increase was 1,020.8334 kg/ha. One can conclude the highlighted
efficiency of the Agrispon in spite of the lack of statistical significance; for the substances (Hormones) that it
contains, such as the gibberellins, will also increase the weight of yields, in some cases. (BEN, J. 1964) and the
cytokinins that act as stimulants in the division of vegetable cells (BEAULIEU, R. 1973).
Table 10. Yield in kilogram for hectare for the interaction Azotobacter x
Frequency of application of Agrispon (A x B)
Application of
Azotobacter
Agrispon A 0 a 1 a 2
b 0 21,145.833 22,708.333 23,750.000
b 1 21,666.667 24,375.000 23,958.333
b 2 21,916.667 26,041.666 25,104.167
12

27000
Figure 4. Azotobacer Interaction - Frequency of Agrispon in accordance with
yield per hectare
Yield Kg/Ha
26000
25000
24000
23000
22000
b0
b1
b2
21000
a0 a1 a2
Azot. g/Ha
Tablet 10 and figure 4, shows the effect of the different levels of Azotobacter in each one of the levels of the
frequencies of application of Agrispon where it is observed that the level of Azotobacter in b 0 (0 applications). A
positive action exists and consequently the yields are increased as the rates of Azotobacter increase, because the
plant assimilates the nitrogen fixed by the bacteria, as well as the nitrogen that is an element which is also beneficial
to the microorganism (BURDON, K.1971). On the other hand in application b 1 (1 application) and b 2 (2
applications), the levels of Azotobacter exhibit a direct effect with these increase of a 0 (0 g/ha) to a 1 (250 g/ha) the
yields increase then stops and start to diminish when the rates of Azotobacter are increased to 500 g/ha. This is
because with 250 g/ha of Azotobacter the plant obtains a good level of required nutrients, whereas, when increasing
the rate, an excess of nutrients, that the plant can no longer assimilate, exists motive for which the yields fall. As
the Law of the Effectiveness of factors of Growth that says: Production increases proportionally when increasing
any one of the factors until arriving at the production maximum, arriving there, a new application of a factor without
increasing the other factors can cause a decrease in the yield (SELKE, W. 1968).
According to the figure, the best combination to use is 250 g/ha of Azotobacter with 2 applications of Agrispon
since this resulted in the best yield of 26,041.6667 kg/ha. With this combination, the plant has the necessary
nutrients for its development and for better production, which is to say that is has neither deficiency nor excesses of
nutritious, a balance exists.
Table 11. Yield in kilograms for hectare of the treatments in study
Treatments
Yields
Code No kg/4.80m 2 kg/ha % Merit
a 1 b 2 6 12.5000 26,041.667 152 I
a 2 b 2 9 12.0500 25,104.167 147 II
a 1 b 1 5 11.7000 24,375.000 143 III
a 2 b 2 8 11.5000 23,958.333 140 IV
a 2 b 0 7 11.4000 23,750.000 139 V
a 1 b 0 4 10.9000 22,708.333 132 VI
a 0 b 2 3 10.5200 22,916.667 128 VII
a 0 b 1 2 10.4000 21,666.667 127 VIII
a 0 b 0 1 10.1600 21,145.833 124 IX
Control 10 8.2060 17,095.833 100 X
13

Figura 5: Yield in kg per hectare of the treatments in study
27000
25000
Yield Kg/Ha
23000
21000
19000
17000
15000
6 9 5 8 7 4 3 2 1 10
Treatments
Table 11 and figure 5 indicates the percentage differences compared to the general control (10). The treatment 6,
was best in order of merit, increasing 52% (8,945.83 kg/ha) treatment 9 that was next with 47% (8,008.33 kg/ha).
Between treatments 6 and 9 only a variation of 5% (9.3715 kg/ha) exists.
These high yields were obtained with a low rate and applications of Azotobacter and 2 applications of Agrispon.
When we compare the highest yield treatment (6) and treatment 5 (first and third place), we find the difference to be
9% (1,666.66 kg/ha) a rate of 250 g/ha and a application of Agrispon, which demonstrates that the best yields are
obtained with low rate and applications of Azotobacter and with 1 and 2 applications of Agrispon.
Treatment 8 which was 4 in yield, compared with 6, the difference is 12% (2,083.33 kg/ha), but compared to 5 the
difference is 3% (416.67 kg/ha).
Through these results, we can conclude that the biggest yields are obtained with the application of a low rate of
inoculant in combination with 2 applications of Agrispon, or when a combination of inoculation and 2 applications
of Agrispon, reaffirming that manifested by COOPER, 1950 (BLACK, C. 1975) that the proportions of Azotobacter
improve the cultivations in the fields between 50 and 70%, achieving increases in the yields by 20%.
Table 12. Correlation, Yield (Y) Length of Root (X 1 ) and bulb Diameter (X 2 )
Yield Length of Diameter of
Treatment (Y) root (X 1 ) bulb (X 2 )
1 10.1600 10.840 5.310
2 10.4000 10.720 5.277
3 10.5200 11.262 5.450
4 10.9000 10.098 5.524
5 11.7000 10.630 5.483
6 12.5000 10.626 5.950
7 11.4000 11.110 5.540
8 11.5000 11.288 5.570
9 12.0500 9.830 5.880
10 8.2060 9.670 4.520
Coefficient of Correlation = r 0.296 0.964
Coefficient of regression = b -- 2.999
r Tabulate: 0.632 and 0.765 for 5% and 1 probability %
Significance
NS
14

The coefficients of Correlation in Table 12 show that statistical significance doesn't exist in the correlation of Root
Length to Yield.
In the correlation of Bulb Diameter, to Yield, a high statistical significance exists, therefore, the variable bulb
diameter, is associated with the yield. It is deduced that for each unit that the bulb diameter is increased, the yield
increases in a quantity of 2.9986 kg. This if because the catáfilas have a higher consistency in their fiber for
accumulation of carbohydrates, and the diameter is in limited relationship with the yield or with the weight of the
bulb.
The coefficients of determination indicate that the variable bulb Diameter influenced yields 92.9% and the other
percentage is attributed to other non-specified factors.
Figure. 6: Equation and Line of Regression for Diameter
Correlation of Stalk vs Yield with high Statistical significance
Yield Kg/Parcel
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
Y= - 5.4100 + 2.0086 X
4.52 5.28 5.31 5.45 5.48 5.52 5.54 5.57 5.88 5.95
Diameter cm.
Table 13. Economic Analysis of Yield per Hectare Ordered by Treatment
TREATMENTS N
NAILS
COST
INOCULANTE S. /
HA
COST BIOESTIMUL
S /. THERE IS /
COST
CULTIVATION +
NPK
COST TOTAL
PRODUCTION S /. /
HA
YIELD KG/HA
GROSS VALUE OF
THE PRODUCTION
S. / / THERE IS /
NET UTILITY S. / /
THERE IS /
PROFITABILITY
B/C0
ORDER OF MERIT
1 a 0 b 0 8’607,408 8’607,408 21,145.83 42’291,660 33’684,252 3.913 VI
2 a 0 b 1 300,000 8’607,408 8’907,408 21,666.66 43’333,320 34’425,912 3.864 VIII
3 a 0 b 2 600,000 8’607,408 9’207,408 21,916.66 43’833,320 34’625,912 3.760 IX
4 a 1 b 0 20,000 8’607,408 8’627,408 22,708.33 45’416,660 36’789,252 4.264 VI
5 a 1 b 1 20,000 300,000 8’607,408 8’927,408 24,375.00 48’750,000 39’822,592 4.460 III
6 a 1 b 2 20,000 600,000 8’607,408 9’227,408 26,041.66 52’083,320 42’855,912 4.644 I
7 a 2 b 0 40,900 - 8’607,408 8’647,408 23,750.00 47’500,000 38’852,592 4.492 II
8 a 2 b 1 40,000 300,000 8’607,408 8’947,408 23,958.33 47’916,660 38’969,252 4.355 V
9 a 2 b 2 40,000 600,000 8’607,408 9’247,408 25,104.16 50’208,320 40’960,912 4.429 IV
10 Control - - 7’451,408 7’451,408 17,095.83 34’191,660 26’740,252 3.58 X
15

Figura 7: Histogram of Profitability for the 10 Treatments in order of mer
4.8
4.6
Yield Kg/Ha
4.4
4.2
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
6 7 5 9 8 4 1 2 3 10
Treatments
In table 13, the Economic Study is presented for onion cultivation per hectare, as net value. Control (T 10 ) is less
than all other treatments: treatment 6 (a 1 b 2 ) best, followed by treatment 9 (a 2 b 2 ) and then treatment 5 (a 1 b 1 ). The
difference between treatment 6 and treatment 9 and treatment 5 was 1,895,000 intis and 3,033,320 intis respectively,
however, as for the cost-benefit relationship, the best was treatment 6 (a1b2) with 4.644 intis which also had the
highest net value, next was treatment 7 (a 2 b 0 ) with 4.49 intis but with net utility that was 5 th best, it is noticed that
Azotobacter was at a rate of 500 g/ha; the 3 rd best was treatment 5 (a 1 b 1 ) with 4.46 intis. As for the difference in
Net value between treatment in 6 th and 9 th position in relation to control are respectively 16,115.66 intis and
14,220.66 intis and with respect profitability of the treatments that 6 th and 7 th best treatments compared to control
are respectively of 1.06 intis and 0.96 intis.
With above-mentioned you can conclude that the Azotobacter spp. influences yields notably, and when considering
the economic aspect it is suitable to use because for its low costs it contributes good value.
Chapter V
CONCLUSIONS
According to the objectives and under the conditions of the study, the following conclusions were reached:
1. The best yields obtained by effect inoculation of Azotobacter were the 250 g/ha compared to the 500 g/ha rate
the yield was very similar.
2. As for frequency of Application, all the treatments are statistically the same; however, the yields are increased
as the application frequency increases.
3. The interaction of Azotobacter and Agrispon was not significant, but to compare these factors to the control
high statistical significance was obtained.
4. With the combination of Azotobacter and Agrispon (a 1 b 1 ) the highest yield was obtained, with 26,041.66 kg/ha.
5. The correlation of diameter of bulb to yield was highly significant: the correlation of length of root to yield did
not give statistical significance.
16

6. From the economic point of view, the biggest revenues were obtained with the following treatments: T6 (a 1 b 2 )
Azotobacter 250 g/ha with 2 applications of Agrispon (4.64 soles/ha), T7 (a 2 b 0 ) Azotobacter 500 g/ha without
Agrispon (4.49 soles/ha) and T5 (a 1 b 1 ) Azotobacter 250 g/ha with 1 application of Agrispon (4.46 soles/ha).
7. Because the Agrispon is not a very well known product in our area, it is recommended to carry out more works
thoroughly, using different levels or rate.
8. The use of preservatives or humidifying agents is recommended when working with cultivations whose foliate
surface present obstacles to the absorption of substances through the stomata or other structure.
Chapter VI
SUMMARY
The present work was carried out in order to determining the effect of the inoculation of Azotobacter spp. and the
frequency of application of Agrispon in the onion cultivation (Allium cepa) Var. Red Arequipeña, as for yield and
quality.
The experimental field was located in the “La Victoria”, property of the National University of Cajamarca.
The design “Complete Randomized Block" was used, with factorial arrangement of 3A x 3B with 9 treatments,
including 1 control, with 4 replications.
Transplant was made manually 2 months after seeding, all the required cultural practices were made for the
cultivation, and water was applied according to the necessities of the cultivation.
The fertilization (Urea 46%) and inoculation (solid constituency for bacterial inoculant and a substrate: peat, carbon
silicon, carbonate of Ca, alfalfa flour and clay) was carried out after 21 days after transplant.
Of the crop was carried out to 198 days after transplant the best yields were with treatment 6 (a 1 b 2 ) Azotobacter 250
g/ha with 2 applications of Agrispon (26,041.667 kg/ha) and treatment 9 (a 2 b 2 ) Azotobacter 500 g/ha with 2
applications of Agrispon (25,104.167 kg/ha) bettering the control 10 statistically (17,095.833 kg/ha).
The economic analysis indicates the best treatment compared to control is 6 (a 1 b 2 ) that has a net value of 42'855,910
soles/ha and treatment 9 (a 2 b 2 ) that has a net value of 40,960,910 soles/ha; with the control T10 having the smallest
net value per hectare with 26'740,250 soles/ha, which demonstrates that the inoculation with the bacteria leads to
bigger yields in the cultivation of the onion.
Statistical significance doesn't exist for the correlation Length of Root vs. Yield; high statistical significance for
Diameter of bulb vs. Yield does exist.
17

CHAPTER VII
CITED LITERATURE
1. BEALIEU, R. (1973). Reguladores de Crecimiento. Ed. O1KOSTAU, S.A. 1° Edic. Barcelona, España.
245 p.
2. BLACK, C. (1975). Relaciones Suelo-Planta. Tomo II. Edit. Hemisferio Sur. 1° Edic. Bs. As. 866 p.
3. BEN, J. (1964). Tratado de Botánica. Edic, Omega S.A., Barcelona, España. 747 p.
4. BUNNER, J and GALSTON, A (1973). Principios de Fisiología Vegetal. Ed. Aguilara, S.A. 5° Edic.
Madrid, España. 469 p.
5. BURDON, K. (1971). Microbiología 1° Ed. México. 830 p.
6. BURGES, A. (1971). Biología del Suelo, Ed. Omega 1° Ed. Barcelona, España. 596 p.
7. CACERES, E. (1980). Producción de Hortalizas. Edit. II CA. 3° Ed. San José, Costa Rica. 387 p.
8. CADENILLAS, A. (1985). ''Influencia del Agrispon y el uso de inoculantes con bacteria fijadores de
Nitrógeno atmosférico Azotobacter, empleando dosis de fertilización en el rendimiento del cultivo de
cebolla”. Cajamarca, Perú. 10 p.
9. CALZADA, B. (1970). Métodos Estadísticos para la Investigación. 3° Edic. Lima, Perú. 494 p.
10. GALVEZ, T. (1982). "Comparativo de Diferentes niveles de fertilización fosforado con inoculación de
Azotobacter spp. en el Cultivo de Betarraga." Tésis, UNC Cajamarca, Perú. 54 p.
11. CHAVEZ, R. (1979). "Comparativo de diferentes niveles de fertilización nitrogenada con inoculación de
Azotobacter spp. en el cultivo de zanahoria, Var. Red Cored Chantenay. Tésis UNC Cajamarca, Perú. 82
p.
12. GOLA, G. (1965). Tratado de Botánica. Edit. Labor S.A. Barcelona, España. 1190 p.
13. IMPORTACIONES AGRÍCOLAS (1983). Folleto de presentación. Agrispon. Lima, Perú.
14. JAMES, W. (1967). Introducción a la Fisiología Vegetal. Edic. Omega, S.A. 6 0 Edic. Barcelona, España.
328 p.
15. MAINARDI, P. (1978). Hortalizas de bulbo, raíz y tubérculo. Edit. de Vecchi, S.A. Barcelona, España.
15 p.
16. MILLAR, C. (1964). Fertilidad del Suelo. 1° Edic. Edit. Salvat. S.A. 477 p.
17. MORTENSEN, S. y BULLARD, E. (1967). Horticultura Tropical y Subtropical. Agencia para el
Desarrollo Internacional (AID). México 1° Edic. 275 p.
18. ROJAS, C. (1977). "Comparativo de Siete cultivares Introducidos de cebolla (Allium cepa) en la Campiña
de Cajamarca". Tésis UNC. Cajamarca, Perú. 41 p.
19. SELKE, W. (1968). Los Abonos. 4 a Edic. Edit . Academia. León, España. 441 p.
20. SILVA, A. (1982). "Influencia del Nitrógeno y la Densidad de Siembra en los rendimientos del Cultivo
de Cebolla Var. "Roja Arequipeña en Cajamarca". Tésis. UNC, Cajamarca, Perú 38 p.
21. TAMARO, D. (1977). Manual de Horticultura. Edit. Gustavo Gili. 8 a Edic. España. 510 p.
22. TISCORNIA, J. (1974). Cultivo de Hortalizas Terrestres. Edit. Albatros, Argentina. 150 p.
23. WEIER, R and STOCKING, R. (1980). Botánica-Edit. Limusa. 5 a Edic. México. 740 p.
24. ZIRENA, D. (1977). Fertilidad de Suelos. 1° Edic. Cajamarca, Perú. 159 p.
18

CAPITULO VIII
APENDICE
Table No. 14: Costs of Production of the Cultivation of Onion per Hectare, without Inoculation
and without, Biostimulant
Costs:
1. Costs Director Variables: S /.
Soil analysis S /. 40,000
Seed 650,000
Storage 32,000
Securities 176,000
Pesticide 200,000
Land preparation 520,000
Transplant 264,000
Weeding 720,000
Irrigation 192,000
Uncovered bulb and bend shaft 240,000
Harvests and transpiration 280,000
3’314,000
2. Special costs: S /. 980,000
Fertilizers 2’500,000
Pesticides 3’480,000
3. General costs: S /.
Social laws (46.2%) 378,840
Administrative expenses 717,280
Miscellaneous 717,280
1’813’410
Summary S/.
Direct costs 3’314,000
Special costs 3’480,000
General costs 1’813,410
Total Costs 8’607,410
19