ORIGINAL PAPER

Enhancement in growth and quality parameters of tea[Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze] through inoculationwith arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in an acid soil

Shipra Singh & Anita Pandey & Bhavesh Kumar &

Lok Man S. Palni

Received: 13 November 2009 /Revised: 27 January 2010 /Accepted: 29 January 2010 /Published online: 24 February 2010# Springer-Verlag 2010

Abstract The present study was undertaken to determinethe effect of inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi(AMF) from natural and cultivated tea rhizospheres (NTRand CTR, respectively) on growth as well as on qualityparameters of tea [Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze]. Seeds(after germination) and cuttings were inoculated with AMFconsortia from NTR and CTR in non-sterilized acid soil(pH 5.0). Seedlings and cuttings were grown under net-house conditions and the data on growth and qualityparameters were recorded up to 2 years. Tea plants werefound to be highly colonized by AMF (74–83%) after1 year. The significant increase in most of the growthparameters (root/shoot length, dry weight; r/s ratio) wasrecorded in AMF-treated plants, which also showed bettertea quality parameters than noninoculated plants. Maximumsignificant increases up to 31% and 100%, over control,were recorded in amino acids and total protein content,respectively. Similarly, maximum increase in total poly-phenols (15%) and caffeine content (34%) over control wasalso significant. Enhanced sugar content (maximum 16% intotal soluble sugars, maximum 45% in reducing sugars, andmaximum 69% in non-reducing sugars) was recorded inAMF-inoculated plants. In most cases, better response was

observed in tea plants inoculated with AMF consortia fromNTR. These results indicate that growth and quality of teacan be improved by AMF inoculations in acid soils.

Keywords AMF. Tea . Growth . Quality parameters .

Acid soil

Introduction

The rhizosphere of tea plants represents a specializedecological niche that exhibits a number of characteristicfeatures, viz. the negative rhizosphere effect, relativelyhigher antagonistic activity around the roots, and loweringof the rhizosphere soil pH. Edaphic and climatic factors aswell as continued interaction between the tea roots andsurrounding soil collectively result in the development of aspecific microbial community (Pandey and Palni 1996,1997, 2004; Pandey et al. 1997, 2001) including arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi (AMF; Singh et al. 2008a) in and aroundthe root zone of established tea bushes.

Tea plants are known to grow on acidic soils. These soilsare strongly leached with a low pH, high Al concentration,and marginal availability of nutrients. Low availability of P,owing to low native content and high P fixation capacity ofacidic soil, is one of the main limiting factors for theproductivity of tea plants (Lin et al. 1992). Plants grown onacidic soils often encounter relatively severe mineral stress;such effects include toxic (Al and Mn) to deficiencysymptoms (P, K, Mg, and K; Marschner 1991; Foy 1992).Excess Al is especially damaging to root growth andoverall development for plants growing in acidic soils (Foy1992). AMF-root symbiosis may help alleviate some of theproblems that the plants encounter when grown in acidic

S. Singh :A. Pandey (*) :B. Kumar : L. M. S. PalniBiotechnological Applications,GB Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development,Kosi-Katarmal,Almora 263 643( Uttarakhand, Indiae-mail: anita@gbpihed.nic.in

Present Address:S. SinghDepartment of Biotechnology and Bioinformatics Centre,Barkatullah University,Bhopal 246 026( Madhya Pradesh, India

Biol Fertil Soils (2010) 46:427–433DOI 10.1007/s00374-010-0448-x

soils (Marschner 1991; Sieverding 1991), including Al and/or Mn toxicity (Maddox and Soileau 1991; Sieverding1991; Clark and Zeto 1996).

Several studies have been conducted to study the effectsof AMF inoculation on growth of many crops and forestspecies. However, reports are scanty on the effects of suchinoculations in tea growth and quality-related parameters.The objective of the present study was to determine theeffect of AMF inoculations on the growth and quality of teaplants grown on acidic soils.

Materials and methods

Seed germination and collection of cuttings

Seeds of Camellia sinensis L. (AV-2 clone, chinery) werecollected from a tea garden located at Kausani (DistrictBageshwar, 1,840 m asl, 29°51′4″ N, 79°35′62″ E) inDecember. The seeds were rinsed with distilled water andleft (in the sand) for cracking for a period of 3 months.Stem cuttings were collected from established tea bushes(chinery) at Ranidhara (District Almora, 1,760 m asl, 29°35′24″ N, 79°40′24″ E).

Preparation of soil and AMF inocula

The soil was collected from a nearby forest (Jageshwar,District Almora, 1,850 m asl, 29°37′ N, 79°56′ E) locationand sieved (2-mm mesh size). The original soil pH was 6.0,which was adjusted to 5.0 by the addition of aluminumsulfate. Sand, silt, clay, and organic carbon contents insoil were 45.88±2.01%, 49.56±2.09%, 4.55±0.24%, and1.76±0.06%, respectively. Non-sterilized soil was used forthe experiments.

Mixed indigenous AMF consortia, containing nativepopulations from the natural (NTR) and cultivated tea rhizo-spheres (CTR; Singh et al. 2008b), were used as inocula.Both consortia contained nine morphospecies in commonviz., Acaulospora spinosa, Acaulospora sp. 1, Glomusaggregatum, Glomus ambisporum, Glomus clavisporum,Glomus geosporum, Glomus mosseae, Glomus pustulatum,and Glomus sp. 7. In addition, consortia from NTRcontained Acaulospora foveta, Acaulospora scrobiculata,G. ambisporum/heterosporum, Glomus clarum, Glomusfasciculatum, Glomus heterosporum, Glomus intraradices,Glomus sp. 6, Glomus sp. 8, Glomus sp. 9, and Glomus sp.10. Whereas, consortia from CTR contained Glomus multi-caule, Glomus sp. 2, Glomus sp. 12, Glomus sp. 14, Glomussp. 15, Glomus sp. 17, Glomus sp. 20, and Scutellospora sp.1, additionally. Morphological details of AMF morphospe-cies identified up to the genus level are provided in Singh etal. (2008a).

Inoculation experiments

After cracking, germinated tea seeds were transferred topolybags (15 cm height, 8 cm diameter; 950 g soil; oneseed per bag) filled with non-sterilized soil. Individual stemcuttings were first treated with Bavistin (0.1%; w v−1;2 min) and then transplanted in polybags. Inoculation withAMF was carried out by placing 10 g of soil-based crudeconsortia (30–40 spores) in each bag, in the soil just belowseedlings or cuttings. Control seedlings and cuttings wereleft uninoculated. One hundred replicates for seedlings/cuttings were used per treatment and including the samenumber for the control. Seedlings as well as cutting-raisedplants were grown under net-house (50% shade) andwatered (with tap water) every alternate day. No fertilizertreatment was given during the course of these experiments.Weeds and pests were removed manually. Data for growthwere recorded after 1 year following inoculation. Teaquality parameters were determined in three constitutiveflushes (first, second, and third). For first flush, tea leavesand buds were collected in March (period of active growthjust after dormancy break) after 1 year of inoculation.Leaves and buds for second flush were collected inNovember (just before start of dormant period) in the sameyear. The third flush leaves and buds were collected inMarch in the following year.

Analysis

Root samples were collected after 1 year from the controland from inoculated plants, rinsed with tap water, and cutinto 1 cm pieces; the root segment were stained with trypanblue according to Phillips and Hayman (1970). Onehundred root segments were randomly picked and mountedon glass slides in lactophenol, and examined microscopi-cally (Nikon-Optiphot-2). The root AMF colonization wascalculated using the following formula:

% colonization ¼ Total no: of root segments colonized

Total no: of root segments examined� 100

To evaluate the plant growth promotion following AMFinoculations, a number of parameters were recorded; theseincluded root and shoot length, dry weight of root andshoot, and root/shoot ratio (dry weight basis). Plants werecarefully removed from the bags and the roots were washedthoroughly in tap water to get rid of adhering soil particles;these were then blotted dry. Dry weight of shoots and rootswas determined after drying the materials to a constantweight at 60°C.

Two leaves and a bud were harvested from tea plants (n=10; pooled) for analyses of tea quality parameters. Thesewere dried overnight at 60°C and then ground to fine

428 Biol Fertil Soils (2010) 46:427–433

powder in a mortar–pestle. This dried fine powder was usedfor various analyses and experiments were conducted intriplicates. Carbohydrates were extracted with aqueousethanol (80%, v v−1; 50 ml 50 mg−1 powder) for 1 h andcentrifuged (10,000×g, 25°C, 10 min). Supernatant wasreduced to 20 ml in vacuo and analyzed for total solublesugars (Dubois et al. 1956) and total reducing sugars(Sumner and Howell 1935) spectrophotometrically. Thevalue for total non-reducing sugars was calculated bysubtracting the value of total reducing sugars from that oftotal soluble sugars. Amino acids were determined from thesame ethanolic extract as reported by Sadasivam andManickam (2003). For protein estimation tea leaves werehomogenized in extraction buffer (10 mM solution of Tris–HCl, NaHCO3, MgCl2, β-mercaptoethanol, and 0.1 mM

NaEDTA; and pH 8.0 containing 150 g l−1 sucrose)followed by centrifugation (18,000×g, 20 min, 4°C);concentration of protein was then determined by themethod of Lowry et al. (1951). Total polyphenols wereextracted with acidic methanol (97 ml of methanol mixedwith 3 ml of concentrated HCl; 6 ml 50 mg−1 powder; 1 h)followed by centrifugation (7,000×g, 25°C, 15 min).Polyphenolic extract was dried in vacuo and residue wasreconstituted in 2 ml of distilled water. Quantification ofpolyphenols was done according to Singleton and Rossi(1965). The caffeine was extracted with a mixture ofammonia solution and chloroform (0.2 and 7 ml, respec-tively; 50 mg−1 powder) and estimated after centrifugation(7,000×g, 25°C, 15 min) by reading the absorbance of theextract at 272 nm against distilled water as blank (Mumin etal. 2006). The concentration of caffeine was calculatedusing calibration curve prepared by taking differentconcentrations of caffeine (50–350 µg).

Statistical analysis

Means were compared for significant differences by Fish-er’s least significant difference (LSD) test with 5% as levelof significance followed by one-way analysis of variance(Gurumani 2005).

Results

Roots of tea plants inoculated by arbuscular mycorrhizalfungal consortia were sufficiently colonized by AMF whenexamined after 1 year. AMF consortium from NTRcolonized 83.3±1.7% and 82.0±1.5% tea roots in seed-and cutting-raised plants, respectively. Lower (p=0.05) butsufficient colonization was recorded in tea plants inoculatedby AMF consortium from CTR (74.9±2.08% and 74.66±2.40% in seed- and cutting-raised plants, respectively)compared to NTR. Colonization of tea roots was not

significantly different between seed- and cutting-raisedplants. Low level of colonization (31.56±0.88% and32.66±1.76% seed- and cutting-raised plants, respectively)was also observed in control tea plants.

The growth of seed-raised tea plants was improved byinoculation with AMF consortia. Both the AMF inocu-lations significantly increased the various plant growthparameters except the root dry weight of cutting-raised teaplants inoculated with AMF from CTR. Significantlydecreased root/shoot ratio were recorded in AMF inoculat-ed cutting-raised tea plants. On the other hand, these valueswere higher in seed-raised tea plants inoculated with AMFfrom both NTR and CTR. Inoculation with AMF fromNTR resulted in better growth of tea plants as compared toAMF from CTR (Table 1).

Parameters related to tea quality are presented in Tables 2and 3, for seed- and cutting-raised plants, respectively. Thecontrol plants contained 244–274 and 302–326 mg/g totalsoluble sugars in seed- and cutting-raised tea plants,respectively. Significant increase in the total soluble sugarcontent was recorded in AMF-inoculated tea plants.Maximum increase in total soluble sugars (16%) wasrecorded in seed-raised tea plants inoculated with AMFfrom CTR. Total reducing and non-reducing sugar contentswere also affected by AMF inoculations. Maximum andsignificant increase in non-reducing sugar (69%) wasrecorded in cutting-raised tea plants inoculated with AMFfrom CTR. At some instances, AMF from NTR resulted indecrease in non-reducing sugar content in both seed- andcutting-raised plants. Highest increase in reducing sugars(45%) was recorded in seed-raised tea plants inoculatedwith AMF from NTR (second flush).

Generally, a significant increase in the total amino acidcontent was also recorded in AMF-inoculated plants.Inoculation with AMF from NTR resulted in higherincrease compared to AMF from CTR. A maximumincrease of 31% over control was recorded in seed-raisedplants inoculated with AMF from NTR. Similarly, amaximum increase up to 100% over control in total proteincontent was observed in seed-raised plants inoculated withAMF from NTR.

Total polyphenols and caffeine contents were alsoincreased by inoculation with AMF from NTR and CTR,though increase was not always significant. Whereas,significant increase in polyphenol content was recorded onlyin the third flush of seed-raised tea plants inoculated withAMF consortium from NTR, significant increase in totalpolyphenol content was recorded in all the flushes of cutting-raised tea plants inoculated with either of the AMF consortia.Caffeine content was also influenced by AMF inoculation.Significant increases in caffeine were recorded in most of theflushes of seed- as well as cutting-raised tea plants followinginoculation with AMF consortia. Concentration of caffeine

Biol Fertil Soils (2010) 46:427–433 429

in the second flush (collected in November) decreasedsignificantly as compared to the first flush (collected inMarch). Overall, better results in relation to quality param-eters were obtained in plants inoculated with AMF consor-tium from NTR.

Discussion

The present study was conducted using non-sterilizedacidic soil because tea plants are known to grow better inacidic soil (Pandey and Palni 1996) and non-sterilized soilmay have an advantage to obtain actual benefits of teaplants by inoculated AMF over the indigenous population.It is advantageous to perform experiments related to plantgrowth under conditions akin to situation in the field so thatgains, if any, can be realistically assessed. Gazey et al.(2004) have also shown the effectiveness of introducedAMF on plant growth in the presence of indigenous AMF.Mixed consortia of Acaulospora and Glomus spp. used inthe present study have previously shown their growth-promoting effects on maize, wheat, and seed-raised teaplants in a short-term experiments (Singh et al. 2008b).Therefore, detailed investigations with both cutting- andseed-raised tea plants were undertaken. Studies with mixedindigenous consortial inocula (Gaur and Adholeya 1999)are gaining importance in recent time since they providegreater and consistent benefits to the host plants incomparison to a single mycosymbiont (Koomen et al.1987).

Inoculated AMF consortia colonized the tea roots ofboth seed- and cutting-raised plants to high degree. Highpercent colonization was also (or earlier) recorded in thecollected field samples (Singh et al. 2008a); this indicatedthe compatibility of tea plants for AMF. Low colonizationwas recorded in control plants which might have occurreddue to transplantation of seedlings and cutting in non-sterilized soil. Data related to growth and other parameterswere recorded after 1 year of inoculation, since tea is a slow

growing woody plant. In a study by Janos et al. (2001), thepositive response to AMF inoculation on lychee growthtook several months to become apparent. Comparing withother woody plant species, they concluded that determina-tion of the effects of mycorrhizas on plant grown frompropagules with substantial mineral nutrient reserves suchas air-layers, large stem cuttings (Cooperband et al. 1994;Habte and Byappanahalli 1994), or very large seeds (Janos1980) must be planned for long duration. Sometimes,negative effects on plant growth are observed at initialstages of AMF colonization due to carbon cost imposed byAMF without a recompensing benefit to the plant(Schroeder and Janos 2004).

Almost in respect of all the growth parameters studied,significant increase was recorded in both seed- and cutting-raised tea plants grown in acid soil. There are a few reportsof effectiveness of AMF on plants grown on acidic soil(Clark 1997; Clark et al. 1999) but the effect of AMFinoculation on growth of tea plants has not been studied indetail. Bacterial inoculations, however, have been shown tohave a positive effect on the growth of seed as well astissue-culture-raised tea plants (Pandey et al. 2000).

Quality of tea is associated with some biochemicalswhich impart liquor, flavor, and aroma characteristics(Yaminishi 1999). Reports related to the effect of AMFinoculation on quality parameters of tea are not available. Inthis study, significant positive effect of AMF inoculation onquality of tea, quality-related parameters like sugars, aminoacids, proteins, total polyphenols, and caffeine of tea wasrecorded in seed- as well as cutting-raised tea plants. Thesepositive effects on quality-related components wereobtained up to 2 years in three consecutive flushes thatshow sustainability of benefits provided by AMF inocu-lations. Variation in different quality-related parameters incontrol seed- and cutting-raised tea plants can be related toclonal variation of both types of plants. Different tea clonesshow a wide variation in different biochemical constituents.

Concentration of caffeine in the second flush (just beforestart of dormancy period) was recorded to be lower as

Table 1 Effects of inoculation with AMF from NTR and CTR on the growth of seed- and cutting-raised plants of tea after 1 year

Parameters Seed raised (n=10) Cutting raised (n=10)

Control NTR CTR Control NTR CTR

Root length (cm) 16.8±0.4 25.2±1.0* (2.2) 19.3±0.5* (1.3) 27.3±2.1 46.7±1.5* (5.2) 28.8±2.1 (5.9)

Root dry weight (g) 2.4±0.0 4.7±0.1* (0.2) 3.2±0.1* (0.1) 1.2±0.1 5.7±0.6* (1.3) 1.6±0.2 (0.5)

Shoot length (cm) 29.8±2.5 49.7±0.6* (2.0) 40.3±0.4* (1.9) 10.8±0.3 33.4±1.2* (2.5) 23.6±0.6* (1.6)

Shoot dry weight (g) 2.1±0.1 3.2±0.0* (0.1) 2.7±0.0* (0.1) 1.0±0.0 7.9±0.4* (0.8) 2.1±0.1* (0.2)

Root: shoot 1.1±0.0 1.4±0.0* (0.04) 1.17±0.01* (0.05) 1.2±0.1 0.7±0.1* (0.1) 0.7±0.1* (0.2)

Values represent mean (n=3)±SEM. LSD values as determined by Fisher’s test are given in parentheses

*p=0.05, shows significant difference

430 Biol Fertil Soils (2010) 46:427–433

Tab

le2

Effectof

inoculationwith

AMFfrom

NTRandCTRon

quality

parametersof

seed-raisedteaplantsun

dernet-ho

usecond

ition

s

Flush

Treatment

Solub

lesugars

(mgg

−1)

Reducingsugars

(mgg

−1)

Non

-reducingsugars

(mgg

−1)

Proteins

(mgg

−1)

Aminoacids

(mgg

−1)

Polyp

heno

ls(m

gg−1)

Caffeine

(mgg

−1)

1st

Con

trol

244.0±4.6

164.0±2.3

80.0±6.1

1.4±0.14

2.7±0.1

19.3±0.6

20.2±0.8

NTR

266.3±3.2*

(15.7)

174.0±1.1*

(7.1)

92.3±4.4(20.91

)2.8±0.1*

(0.5)

3.6±0.1*

(0.3)

22.3±0.9(3.1)

24.3±0.3*

(2.4)

CTR

284.6±2.3*

(14.3)

194.6±1.3*

(7.4)

90.0±2.5(18.3)

1.9±0.0*

(0.4)

3.2±0.1*

(0.3)

12.0±1.1*

(3.7)

22.9±0.5*

(2.6)

2nd

Con

trolNTR

255.0±3.2

174.0±3.0

81.0±5.1

2.0±0.0

3.4±0.1

30.6±1.2

1.4±0.0

295.3±1.8*

(10.30

)25

3.3±6.6*

(20.3)

42.0±6.2*

(22.4)

3.1±0.1*

(0.4)

4.2±0.1*

(0.3)

36.0±1.7(5.8)

1.9±0.0*

(0.2)

CTR

296.3±2.4*

(11.1)

196.0±2.3*

(10.6)

101.0±3.0*

(16.5)

2.4±0.1(0.4)

3.9±0.0*

(0.2)

26.2±0.6*

(3.7)

1.8±0.1*

(0.3)

3rd

Con

trol

274.3±0.8

174.0±3.0

100.0±2.0

2.0±0.1

4.0±0.1

84.3±1.2

19.5±0.2

NTR

314.0±6.6*

(18.6)

253.3±6.6*

(20.3)

62.6±2.0*

(8.0)

3.2±0.1*

(0.41)

4.7±0.1*

(0.3)

96.0±1.1*

(4.62)

22.1±1.0*

(1.5)

CTR

329.0±5.5*

(15.4)

196.0±2.3*

(10.6)

133.0±7.0*

(20.5)

2.4±0.0*

(0.2)

4.1±0.1(0.2)

90.3±0.8*

(4.1)

21.9±0.9*

(1.8)

Valuesrepresentmean(n=3)±SEM.LSD

values

asdeterm

ined

byFisher’stestaregivenin

parentheses.Tea

leaves

andbu

dswerecollected

after1year

ofinoculationin

themon

thsof

March

(firstflush),Nov

ember(secon

dflush),andagainin

follo

wingMarch

(third

flush)

*p=0.05

,show

ssign

ificantdifference

Tab

le3

Effectof

inoculationwith

AMFfrom

NTR

andCTRon

quality

-related

parametersof

cutting

-raisedplantsof

teaun

dernet-ho

usecond

ition

s

Flush

Treatment

Solub

lesugars

(mgg

−1)

Reducingsugars

(mgg

−1)

Non

-reducingsugars

(mgg

−1)

Total

proteins

(mgg

−1)

Aminoacids

(mgg

−1)

Total

polyph

enols

(mgg

−1)

Caffeine

(mgg

−1)

1st

Con

trol

302.0±2.6

209.3±4.8

92.6±7.1

2.2±0.1

3.4±0.1

21.5±0.2

16.0±0.5

NTR

329.6±1.7*

(8.8)

229.6±2.9*

(15.5)

105.0±1.1(20.1)

2.4±0.0(0.5)

3.9±0.1*

(0.3)

31.6±0.8*

(2.5)

18.9±0.5*

(2.1)

CTR

311.3±1.8*

(8.9)

154.6±2.4*

(15.5)

156.6±2.0*

(20.6)

2.5±0.1(0.5)

4.0±0.1*

(0.5)

11.0±0.5*

(1.7)

21.5±1.3*

(4.1)

2nd

Con

trol

312.6±3.2

172.6±1.7

141.0±2.5

2.8±0.1

3.8±0.1

28.0±0.5

1.3±0.1

NTR

323.6±2.1*

(10.9)

183.0±9.0(25.66

)14

0.6±10

.6(30.4)

3.2±0.1(0.5)

4.3±0.2(0.7)

33.2±0.3*

(1.9)

1.8±0.9*

(0.3)

CTR

315.6±4.7(15.9)

143.6±8.0*

(22.9)

172.0±5.0*

(15.5)

3.5±0.1*

(0.2)

4.1±0.0(0.4)

12.3±0.8*

(2.9)

1.7±0.1(0.5)

3rd

Con

trol

326.0±1.1

216.0±3.0

110.0±2.3

2.5±0.1

4.4±0.1

73.8±1.6

19.4±0.2

NTR

345.3±2.3*

(7.2)

231.6±4.9(16.0)

113.6±7.2(21.03

)2.9±0.0*

(0.3)

5.1±0.1*

(0.5)

82.6±1.7*

(6.73)

21.5±0.6*

(1.9)

CTR

338.0±1.1*

(4.5)

204.3±6.1(19.1)

133.6±6.2*

(18.4)

2.9±0.1*

(0.3)

4.6±0.1(0.5)

69.3±2.0(7.2)

22.7±0.1*

(0.7)

Valuesrepresentmean(n=3)±SEM.LSD

values

asdeterm

ined

byFisher’stestaregivenin

parentheses.Tea

leaves

andbu

dswerecollected

after1year

ofinoculationin

themon

thsof

March

(firstflush),Nov

ember(secon

dflush),andagainin

follo

wingMarch

(third

flush)

*p=0.05

,show

ssign

ificantdifference

Biol Fertil Soils (2010) 46:427–433 431

compared to first and third flushes (start of active growthperiod). Our results support earlier study where it has beenreported that the concentration of caffeine is lowered in laterflushes (just before start of dormancy period) as compared toearly one, i.e., just after dormancy break (Gulati andRavindranath 1996). Non-reducing sugars decreased atsome instances since its total soluble sugar content wasnot increased at a comparable rate with the reducing sugarcomponent of total soluble sugars. These results indicatedthat AMF inoculations may not only enhance total solublesugars but may also alter sugar composition.

Hilton et al. (1973) have shown that quality of tea isinversely related with the growth of tea plants; thus, theaddition of nitrogen fertilizers, which are applied in heavyamount during tea cultivation, had a deleterious effect onthe quality of black tea due to the increased growth of teaplants. In most instances, significant increase in above-mentioned quality parameters was recorded in this studywhich reflects the positive effect of AMF inoculation on teaquality as well as on growth of tea plants. Since, AMFassociation not only improves the growth of host plants butalso plant performance and metabolic activity that, in turn,may have resulted in the improved content of quality-related parameters of tea along with the growth.

The use of AMF associations needs to be explored to agreater extent to benefit plants growing under stressedenvironments such as acid soil. Tea is one of the mostimportant cash crop of India and tea industry needs to meetthe demand worldwide by both increasing yield as well asquality improvement. Our results indicate that AMFinoculation can be effective for tea plants which are grownon acid soils; sustainable enhancement in growth andquality as well can be achieved through AMF inoculations.

Acknowledgments Authors are thankful to Science and SocietyDivision, Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi,Government of India, Department of Biotechnology and UnionMinistry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, NewDelhi for financial support.

References

Clark RB (1997) Arbuscular mycorrhizal adaptation, spore germina-tion, root colonization and host plant growth and mineralacquisition at low pH. Plant Soil 192:15–22

Clark RB, Zeto SK (1996) Growth and root colonization ofmycorrhizal maize grown on acid and alkaline soil. Soil BiolBiochem 28:1505–1511

Clark RB, Zeto SK, Zobel RW (1999) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungalisolate effectiveness on growth and root colonization of Panicumvirgatum in acidic soil. Soil Biol Biochem 31:1757–1763

Cooperband LR, Boener REJ, Logan TJ (1994) Humid tropicalleguminous tree and pasture grass responsiveness to vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal infection. Mycorrhiza 4:233–239

Dubois M, Gilles KA, Hamilton JK, Roberts PA, Smith F (1956)Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and relatedsubstances. Determination of concentration of pure sugarsolution. Ann Chemistry 28:350–360

Foy CD (1992) Soil chemical factors limiting plant root growth. AdvSoil Sci 19:87–149

Gaur A, Adholeya A (1999) Mycorrhizal effects on the acclimatiza-tion, survival, growth and chlorophyll of micropropagatedSyngonium and Draceana inoculated at weaning and hardeningstages. Mycorrhiza 9:215–219

Gazey C, Abbott LK, Robson AD (2004) Indigenous and introducedarbuscular mycorrhizal fungi contribute to plant growth in twoagricultural soils from south-western Australia. Mycorrhiza 14:355–362

Gulati A, Ravindranath SD (1996) Seasonal variation in quality ofKangra tea (Camellia sinensis (L) O Kuntze) in HimachalPradesh. J Sci Food Agricul 71:231–236

Gurumani N (2005) An Introduction to Biostatistics. MJP, ChennaiHabte M, Byappanahalli MN (1994) Dependency of cassava (Manihot

esculanta Crantz) on vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.Mycorrrhiza 4:241–245

Hilton PJ, Palmer-Jones R, Ellis RT (1973) Effect of season andnitrogen fertilizer upon the flavanol composition and tea makingquality of fresh shoots of tea (Camellia sinensis L.) in CentralAfrica. J Sci Food Agricul 24:819–826

Janos DP (1980) vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae affect lowlandtropical rain forest plant growth. Ecology 61:151–162

Janos DP, Schroeder MS, Schaffer B, Crane JH (2001) Inoculationwith arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi enhance growth of Litchichinensis Sonn. trees after propagation by air layering. Plant Soil233:85–94

Koomen I, Grace C, Hayman DS (1987) Effectiveness of single andmultiple mycorrhizal inocula on growth of clover on strawberryplants at two soil pHs. Soil Biol Biochem 19:539–544

Lin Z, Wu X, Wang X, Yu Y (1992) Studies on phosphorus nutritionin red soil of tea field. In: Tea Science research Proceedings. TeaResearch Institute of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science.Shanghai Scientific and Technological Publisher, Shanghai

Lowry OH, Rosenbrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ (1951) Proteinmeasurements with the folin phenol reagent. J Biol Biochem193:265–275

Maddox JJ, Soileau JM (1991) Effect of phosphate fertilization, limeamendments and inoculation with VA-mycorrhizal fungi onsoybeans in an acid soil. Plant Soil 134:83–93

Marschner H (1991) Mechanisms of adaptation of plants to acid soils.Plant Soil 134:1–20

Mumin A, Akhter KF, Abedin Z, Hossain Z (2006) Determination andcharacterization of caffeine in tea, coffee and soft drinks by solidphase extraction and high performance liquid chromatography(SPE–HPLC). Malaysian J Chem 8:45–51

Pandey A, Palni LMS (1996) The rhizosphere effect of tea on soil microbesin a Himalayan monsoonal location. Biol Fertil Soils 21:131–137

Pandey A, Palni LMS (1997) Bacillus species: the dominant bacteria ofthe rhizosphere of established tea bushes. Microbiol Res 152:359–365

Pandey A, Palni LMS (2004) Tea rhizosphere: microbial diversity andcharacteristic features and comments on microbial communica-tion in rhizosphere. Inter J Tea Sci 3:285–290

Pandey A, Palni LMS, Coulomb N (1997) Antifungal activity ofbacteria isolated from the rhizosphere of established tea bushes.Microbiol Res 152:105–112

Pandey A, Palni LMS, Bag N (2000) Biological hardening of tissueculture raised tea plants through rhizosphere bacteria. BiotechnolLett 22:1087–1091

Pandey A, Palni LMS, Bisht D (2001) Dominant fungi in therhizosphere of established tea bushes and their interaction with

432 Biol Fertil Soils (2010) 46:427–433

the dominant bacteria under in situ condition. Microbiol Res156:377–382

Phillips JM, Hayman DS (1970) Improved procedure for clearing roots andstaining parasitic and vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi for rapidassessment of infections. Transaction British Mycol Soc 55:158–161

Sadasivam S, Manickam A (2003) Biochemical Methods, 2nd edn.New Age International (P) Ltd, New Delhi

Schroeder MS, Janos DP (2004) Phosphorus and intraspecific densityalter plant responses to arbuscular mycorrhizas. Plant Soil264:335–348

Sieverding E (1991) Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza management intropical agrosystems. Deutsche Gesellschaft Technische Zusam-menarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn

Singh S, Pandey A, Chaurasia B, Palni LMS (2008a) Diversity ofarbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associated with the rhizosphere of

tea growing in ‘natural’ and ‘cultivated’ ecosites. Biol Fertil Soils44:491–500

Singh S, Pandey A, Palni LMS (2008b) Screening of arbuscularmycorrhizal fungal consortia developed from the rhizospheres ofnatural and cultivated tea plants for growth promotion in tea[Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze]. Pedobiologia 52:119–125

Singleton VL, Rossi JA (1965) Colorimetry of total phenolics withphosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. American JEnol Viticulture 16:144–158

Sumner JB, Howell SF (1935) A colorimetric estimation of reducingsugars in potatoes with 3, 5-dinitrosalicylic acid. Potato Res16:176–179

Yaminishi T (1999) Tea flavour. In: Jain NK (ed) Global advances intea science. Aravali Books International (P) Ltd, New Delhi, pp707–722

Biol Fertil Soils (2010) 46:427–433 433