Formation of yield of soft winter wheat depending on varietal properties and the influence of biostimulants based on rhizobacteria
Abstract
Objective. The aim of our research was to establish patterns of yield formation of soft winter wheat depending on varietal properties and the influence of rhizobacteria-based biostimulants. Methods. The field method of research involved determining the influence of the use of bio-stimulants based onrhizobacteria on the formation of grain yield of soft winter wheat varieties. Common winter wheat varieties Manzhelia, Bogdana, Altigo were the object of the study. The weather conditions of 2023–2024 made it possible to assess the reaction of varieties to stress factors and to determine the effectiveness of bacterial biological preparations and their impact on crop productivity. Five options for the use of biologics were envisaged in the experiment. Yield was determined by the method of continuous accounting. Using the analysis of variance, the smallest significant difference and the proportion of influence of the studied factors on the grain yield of soft winter wheat were established.Results. According to the results of the field experiment, the smallest increase compared to the control was recorded when using a single-seater drug based on Azotobacter chroococcum (+4.69%) and when using a consortium of nitrogen-fixing and associative bacteria (+4.3%), which is associated with an improvement in nitrogen nutrition due to the activity of nitrogen-fixing microorganisms. The introduction of soil spore-forming bacteria (Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens) gave a yield increase of 7.73%, which indicates the effectiveness of phosphate mobilizing microorganisms in increasing the availability of phosphorus. The highest efficacy was demonstrated by a complex preparation that integrates nitrogen-fixing and phosphate-mobilizing bacteria, providing yield gains of up to 9.44% (0.5–0.7 t/ha).Analysis of variance showed that the climatic conditions of a specific year (40.4%) and the use of biological preparations during the growing season (17.7%) had the most significant impact on yield change. The proportion of varietal differences was 24.5%, however, their action alone was not statistically confirmed and manifested mainly through interaction over the years (11.4%). The participation of other interactions was minimal (0.03–0.08%), while the error of the experiment reached 5.9%.Conclusions. The use of rhizobacteria-based biostimulants in the spring growing phase (BBCH 22 – two lateral shoots) has been found to increase the yield of wheat, soft winter.
References
2. Гордина О. Ю. Особливості розвитку рослин пшениці озимої в осінньо-зимовий період вегетації залежно від передпосівної обробки насіння. Новітні агротехнології. 2021. (9). С. DOI:doi.org/10.47414/na.9.2021.257353
3. Каленська С. М., Гордина О. Ю. Закономірності розвитку пшениці озимої у весняно-літній період вегетації залежно від передпосівної обробки насіння. Новітні агротехнології. 2022. 10 (3). С. DOI:doi.org/10.47414/na.10.3.2022.270488
4. Власюк О. Вплив екологічно безпечних препаратів на урожайність та ураження хворобами пшениці озимої в умовах Правобережного Лісостепу. Вісник аграрної науки. 2023. Т. 101, № 4. С. 30–37. DOI:doi.org/10.31073/agrovisnyk202304-04
5. Заєць С. О. та ін. Вплив різних систем біологічного захисту рослин на врожайність та якість зерна пшениці озимої в органічному землеробстві. Аграрні інновації. 2024. № 23. С. 75–82. URL:doi.org/10.32848/agrar.innov.2024.23.11
6. Кордулян Р., Кордулян Ю., Солломійчук М. Вплив бактерій роду *Azotobacter chroococcum* на ріст і розвиток сільськогосподарських культур у західноукраїнській лісостеповій провінції. Передгірне та гірське землеробство і тваринництво. 2020. № (67)-2. С. 124–138. DOI:doi.org/10.32636/01308521.2020-(67)-2-8
7. Поспєлова Г. Д. та ін. Ефективність застосування біопрепаратів на пшениці озимій. Scientific Progress & Innovations. 2025. Т. 27, № 4. С. 37–42. DOI:doi.org/10.31210/spi2024.27.04.07
8. A. Shuvar Application of biological preparations in organic technology of winter wheat growing. Foothill and mountain agriculture and stockbreeding. 2020. № (67)-1. P. 143–155. URL: https://doi.org/10.32636/01308521.2020-(67)-1-10
9. Górski R., Przewodowski W., Płaza A. Preliminary determination of the possibility of reducing nitrogen fertilization under the influence of bacterial formulations in the cultivation of triticum aestivum l. Folia pomeranae universitatis technologiae stetinensis agricultura, alimentaria, piscaria et zootechnica. 2024. Т. 371, № 70. P. 21–35. DOI: doi.org/10.21005/aapz2024.70.2.3
10. Öksel C. Investigation of the effect of pgpr on yield and some yield components in winter wheat. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops. 2022. 27 (1). P. 127–133. DOI:doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.1019160
11. Milošević N., Tintor B., Protić R., Cvijanović G., Dimitrijević T. Effect of inoculation with *Azotobacter chroococcum* on wheat yield and seed quality. *International Conference: Conventional and molecular breeding of field and vegetable crops*, Novi Sad, Serbia. 2012. 17 (3). P. 7352–7357.
12. Baker N. R. et al. Nutrient and moisture limitations reveal keystone metabolites linking rhizosphere metabolomes and microbiomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2024. Vol. 121, No. 32. DOI:doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2303439121)
13. Radzikowska-Kujawska D. Response of Winter Wheat (*Triticum aestivum* L.) to Selected Biostimulants under Drought Conditions. Agriculture. 2022. Т. 13, № 1. P. 1-14. DOI:doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13010121
14. Wang Z. Screening of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria and their abilities of phosphorus solubilization and wheat growth promotion. BMC Microbiology. 2022. Т. 22, № 1. DOI:doi.org/10.1186/s12866-022-02715-7
15. Solomon W., Janda T., Molnár Z. Unveiling the significance of rhizosphere: Implications for plant growth, stress response, and sustainable agriculture. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2023. P. 108290. DOI:doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2023.108290
