This study evaluates the effect of lignocellulosic substrate obtained after hydrogen dark fermentation of food waste on plant growth using the radish Raphanus sativus L as an example. Addition of substrate at concentrations of 66 and 132 g/m2 into plain sand caused a strong inhibitory effect on seed germination and root and shoot growth, while a concentration of 33 g/m2 showed significant positive effect with 40% higher seed germination and 90% higher survival after drought stress compared to plain sand. Application of lignocellulosic substrate increased the amount of ammonifying and free-living heterotrophic diazotrophic bacteria that may act as plant probiotics supplying mineral nitrogen for plant nutrition in arid conditions. Preliminary results suggest that lignocellulosic substrate may be used as biofertilizer.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SchröderP, BeckersB, DanielsS, et al.Intensify production, transform biomass to energy and novel goods and protect soils in Europe—A vision how to mobilize marginal lands. Sci Total Environ, 2018; 616–617:1101–1123.
2.
FedoroffNV, BattistiDS, BeachyRN, et al.Radically rethinking agriculture for the 21st century. Science, 2010; 327(5967):833–834.
3.
du JardinP. Plant biostimulants: Definition, concept, main categories and regulation. Scientia Horticulturae, 2015; 196:3–14.
BhardwajD, AnsariMW, SahooRK, TutejaN. Biofertilizers function as key player in sustainable agriculture by improving soil fertility, plant tolerance and crop productivity. Microb Cell Fact, 2014; 13(1):66.
6.
Flores-FélixJD, SilvaLR, RiveraLP, et al.Plants probiotics as a tool to produce highly functional fruits: The case of Phyllobacterium and vitamin C in strawberries. PLoS One, 2015; 10(4):e0122281.
7.
IslamMT, HossainMM. Plant probiotics in phosphorus nutrition in crops, with special reference to rice. In: MaheshwariDK, ed. Bacteria in Agrobiology: Plant Probiotics, Springer-Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg, 2012:325–363.
8.
BerlecA. Novel techniques and findings in the study of plant microbiota: Search for plant probiotics. Plant Sci, 2012; 193:96–102.
9.
KanchiswamyCN, MalnoyM, MaffeiME. Chemical diversity of microbial volatiles and their potential for plant growth and productivity. Front Plant Sci, 2015; 6:151.
10.
DuttaS, DasAK. Analytical perspective on waste management for environmental remediation. Trends Analyt Chem, 2010; 29(7):636–644.
11.
TiwariVN, TiwariKN, UpadhyayRM. Effect of crop residues and biogas slurry incorporation in wheat on yield and soil fertility. J Indian Soc Soil Sci, 2000; 48:515–520.
12.
YuFB, LuoXP, SongCF, et al.Concentrated biogas slurry enhanced soil fertility and tomato quality. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Science, 2010; 60(3):262–268.
13.
GargRN, PathakH, DasDK, TomarRK. Use of flyash and biogas slurry for improving wheat yield and physical properties of soil. Environ Monit Assess, 2005; 107:1–9.
14.
LakhdarA, RabhiM, GhnayaT, et al.Effectiveness of compost use in salt-affected soil. J Hazardous Mater, 2009; 171(1–3):29–37.
15.
Sánchez ÓJ, OspinaDA, MontoyaS. Compost supplementation with nutrients and microorganisms in composting process. Waste Manage, 2017; 69:136–153.
16.
InsamH, Gómez-BrandónM, AscherJ. Manure-based biogas fermentation residues—Friend or foe of soil fertility?. Soil Biol Biochem, 2015; 84:1–14.
17.
MakádiM, TomócsikA, OroszV. Digestate: A new nutrient source—review. In: KumarS, ed. Biogas. InTech Europe; Rijeka, Croatia: 2012:295–310.
18.
WaldropMP, BalserTC, FirestoneMK. Linking microbial community composition to function in a tropical soil. Soil Biol Biochem, 2000; 32:1837–1846.
19.
ShikhaD, OmprakashS, SwamyYV, MohanSV. Acidogenic fermentation of food waste for volatile fatty acid production with co-generation of biohydrogen. Bioresour Technol, 2015; 182:103–113.
20.
TradZ, FontaineJP, LarrocheC, VialC. Multiscale mixing analysis and modelling of biohydrogen production by dark fermentation. Renew Energy, 2016; 98:264–282.
21.
JarunglumlertT, PrommuakC, PutmaiN, PavasantP. Scaling-up bio-hydrogen production from food waste: Feasibilities and challenges. Int J Hydrog Energ, 2017; 43(2):634–648.
22.
SarmaSJ, PachapurV, BrarSK, et al.Hydrogen biorefinery: Potential utilization of the liquid waste from fermentative hydrogen production. Renew Sustain Energ Rev, 2015; 50:942–51.
23.
YunYM, LeeMK, ImSW, et al.Biohydrogen production from food waste: Current status, limitations, and future perspectives. Bioresour Technol, 2018; 248(A:79–87.
24.
DineshGK, ChauhanR, ChakmaS. Influence and strategies for enhanced biohydrogen production from food waste. Renew Sustain Energ Rev, 2018; 92:807–822.
25.
TashyrevaH, TashyrevO, GovorukhaV, HavryliukO. The effect of mixing modes on biohydrogen yield and spatial pH gradient at dark fermentation of solid food waste. Ecolog Eng Environ Protect, 2017; 2:53–62.
26.
NiessenJ, HarnischF, RosenbaumM. Heat treated soil as convenient and versatile source of bacterial communities for microbial electricity generation. Electrochem Comm, 2006; 8(5):869–873.
27.
AlibardiL, FavaroL, LavagnoloMC, et al.Effects of heat treatment on microbial communities of granular sludge for biological hydrogen production. Water Sci Technol, 2012; 66(7):1483–1490.
28.
LinCW, WuCH, TrancDT, et al.Mixed culture fermentation from lignocellulosic materials using thermophilic lignocellulose-degrading anaerobes. Process Biochem, 2011; 46(2):489–493.
29.
SánchezC. Lignocellulosic residues: Biodegradation and bioconversion by fungi. Biotechnol Adv, 2009; 27(2):185–194.
30.
BielikovaO, MatvieievaN, TashyrevO. Toxicity of unfermented waste residue obtained in microbial destruction of organic waste. Agroecological J, 2017; 1:128–130.
31.
A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: https://r-project.org (Last accessed November2018).
32.
PopelářováE, VoříšekK, StrnadováS. Relations between activities and counts of soil microorganisms. Plant Soil Environ, 2008; 54(4):163–170.
33.
MikanováO, FriedlováM, ŠimonT. The influence of fertilisation and crop rotation on soil microbial characteristics in the long-term field experiment. Plant Soil Environ, 2009; 55(1):11–16.
34.
TopalovaY, SchneiderI, TodorovaY, et al.Analogous modeling of nutrient transformation in Iskar River sediments at different moisture content: Microbiological and enzymological indicators. Biotechnol Biotechnolog Equip, 2013; 27(4):3923–3931.
35.
Microbiology Info.com (2015). Endopore Staining—Principle, Reagents, Procedure and Result. Available at: https://microbiologyinfo.com/endospore-staining-principle-reagents-procedure-and-result/ (Last accessed November2018).
36.
De ClercqD, WenZ, FanF. Performance evaluation of restaurant food waste and biowaste to biogas pilot projects in China and implications for national policy. J Environ Manage, 2017; 189:115–124.
37.
DhingraD, MichaelM, RajputH, PatilR. Dietary fibre in foods: A review. J Food Sci Technol, 2012; 49(3):255–266.
38.
StabnikovaO, DingHB, TayJH, WangJY. Biotechnology for aerobic conversion of food waste into organic fertilizer. Waste Manag Res, 2005; 23(1):39–47.
39.
TorresIF, BastidaF, HernándezT, et al.The role of lignin and cellulose in the carbon-cycling of degraded soils under semiarid climate and their relation to microbial biomass. Soil Biol Biochem, 2014; 75:152–160.
40.
KumarM, KhannaS. Shift in microbial population in response to crystalline cellulose degradation during enrichment with a semi-desert soil. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad, 2014; 88:134–141.
41.
TashyrevaA, TashyrevO, PrytulaI. The novel comprehensive approach for non-food agricultural and landfill biomass microbial fermentation and biogas production. In: Biotechnology and Plant Breeding Perspectives, Behl RK, Arseniuk E, eds. Agrobios (International) Publishers,, 2014; 347–356.
42.
AbabouchL, ChaibiA, BustaFF. Inhibition of bacterial spore growth by fatty acids and their sodium salts. J Food Protect, 1992; 55(12):980–984.
43.
FayJP, FariasRN. The inhibitory action of fatty acids on the growth of Escherichia coli. J Gener Microbiol, 1975; 91:233–240.
44.
OhkawaM, NishikawaY. Plant growth inhibitory activity of fatty acids and the related compounds by the Avena coleoptile test. Plant Sci, 1987; 53(1):35–38.
45.
TsoTC. Plant-growth inhibition by some fatty acids and their analogues. Nature, 1964; 202:511–512.
46.
LinPY, WhangLM, WuYR, et al.Biological hydrogen production of the genus Clostridium: Metabolic study and mathematical model simulation. Int J Hydr Energ, 2007; 32(12):1728–1735.
47.
LaothanachareonT, KanchanasutaS, MhuanthongW, et al.Analysis of microbial community adaptation in mesophilic hydrogen fermentation from food waste by tagged 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing. J Environmental Management, 2014; 144:143–151.
48.
SiB, LiuZ, ZhangY, et al.Effect of reaction mode on biohydrogen production and its microbial diversity. Int J Hydr Energ, 2015; 40(8):3191–3200.
49.
Cisneros-PérezC, EtchebehereC, CelisLB, et al.Effect of inoculum pretreatment on the microbial community structure and its performance during dark fermentation using anaerobic fluidized-bed reactors. Int J Hydr Energ, 2017; 42(15):9589–9599.
50.
SongZX, LiWW, LiXH, et al.Isolation and characterization of a new hydrogen-producing strain Bacillus sp. FS2011. Int Journal Hydr Energ, 2013; 38(8):3206–3212.
51.
SinhaP, PandeyA. Biohydrogen production from various feedstocks by Bacillus firmus NMBL-03. Int J Hydr Energ, 2014; 39(14):7518–7525.
52.
Bala-AmuthaK, MurugesanAG. Biohydrogen production using corn stalk employing Bacillus licheniformis MSU AGM 2 strain. Renew Energ, 2013; 50:621–627.
53.
TashyrevOB, PrytulaIR, TashyrevaHO. Identification of spore bacteria in associations of hydrogen-forming microorganisms. Bulletin of Agrarian Sci, 2015; 3:41–46.
54.
WolińskaA, Szafranek-NakoniecznaA, BanachA, et al.The impact of agricultural soil usage on activity and abundance of ammonifying bacteria in selected soils from Poland. SpringerPlus, 2016; 5(1):565.
55.
PeelaS, KadiriDD, GorleN, PeetalaKVR. Isolation and identification of promising ammonifying and nitrifying bacteria from agricultural fields of Visakhapatnam. Inter J Pharma Bio Sci, 2015; 6(2):1309–1317.
56.
BehrendtU, SchumannP, StieglmeierM, et al.Characterization of heterotrophic nitrifying bacteria with respiratory ammonification and denitrification activity—Description of Paenibacillus uliginis sp. nov., an inhabitant of fen peat soil and Paenibacillus purispatii sp. nov., isolated from a spacecraft assembly clean room. System Appl Microbiol, 2010; 33(6):328–336.
57.
ShabanamolS, DivyaK, GeorgeTK, et al.Characterization and in planta nitrogen fixation of plant growth promoting endophytic diazotrophic Lysinibacillus sphaericus isolated from rice (Oryza sativa). Physiol Mol Plant Pathol, 2018; 102:46–54.
58.
RóżyckiH, DahmH, StrzelczykE, LiCY. Diazotrophic bacteria in root-free soil and in the root zone of pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and oak (Quercus robur L.). Appl Soil Ecol, 1999; 12(3):239–250.
59.
SarathambalC, IlamuruguK, BalachandarD, GhardeY. Characterization and crop production efficiency of diazotrophic isolates from the rhizosphere of semi-arid tropical grasses of India. Appl Soil Ecol, 2015; 87:1–10.
60.
KöberlM, MüllerH, RamadanEM, BergG. Desert farming benefits from microbial potential in arid soils and promotes diversity and plant health. PLoS One, 2011; 6(9):e24452.
61.
MarascoR, RolliE, EttoumiB, et al.A drought resistance-promoting microbiome is selected by root system under desert farming. PloS One, 2012; 7(10):e48479.
62.
MarulandaA, BareaJM, AzcónR. Stimulation of plant growth and drought tolerance by native microorganisms (AM fungi and bacteria) from dry environments: Mechanisms related to bacterial effectiveness. J Plant Growth Reg, 2009; 28(2):115–124.
