Browse

Journals By Subject

Life Sciences, Agriculture & Food
Chemistry
Medicine & Health
Materials Science
Mathematics & Physics
Electrical & Computer Science
Earth, Energy & Environment
Architecture & Civil Engineering
Education
Economics & Management
Humanities & Social Sciences
Multidisciplinary

Books

Publish Conference Abstract Books
Upcoming Conference Abstract Books
Published Conference Abstract Books
Publish Your Books
Upcoming Books
Published Books

Proceedings

Events

Events
Five Types of Conference Publications

Join

Join as Editor-in-Chief
Join as Senior Editor
Join as Editorial Board Member
Become a Reviewer

Information

For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Conference Organizers
For Librarians
Article Processing Charges
Special Issue Guidelines
Editorial Process
Manuscript Transfers
Peer Review at SciencePG
Open Access
Copyright and License
Ethical Guidelines
Submit an Article
Research Article | | Peer-Reviewed

Effect of fertilizer Microdosing of and Microbial Inoculation on Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br) Growth on Two Soils of the Peanut Basin of Senegal

Khady Diaw,  Ramatoulaye Thiaba Samba*,  Malick Ndiaye,  Mame Arame Fall Ndiaye
Published in International Journal of Applied Agricultural Sciences (Volume 12, Issue 4)
Received: 25 May 2026     Accepted: 8 June 2026     Published: 3 July 2026
Views:       Downloads:
Download PDF
Abstract

Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br) is a very important cereal crop in the semi-arid regions of West Africa, serving as a primary food source for local populations. Therefore, its productivity remains lowered by soil degradation and low availability of inputs as fertilizers. In this context, biofertilizers and organic amendments offer sustainable and ecological alternatives for enhancing crop performance. This study aims to contribute to improve pearl millet production through the application of biofertilizers arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) combined with microdose NPK. The research focuses on two soils of the peanut basin of Senegal (Touba Toul and Gossas). Thus, a greenhouse experiment was conducted using a completely randomized block design with five treatments (control, microdose, fungal inoculation (AMF), bacterial inoculation (PGPR) and dual inoculation (AMF+PGPR)) and five replicates, on each of the two soils. The parameters assessed included mycorrhization, collar diameter, number of leaves, chlorophyll content, shoot and root biomass, and ears length. Results revealed that, the microdose generated the best agronomic performance, including 46% increase in chlorophyll content and 30% increase in collar diameter compared to control. The AMF, PGPR and AMF+PGPR treatments showed more variable effects. While close to some parameters such as shoot biomass, improved significantly (up to 20% increase), but with no significant improvement in root biomass (1.02% increase). A notable site effect was observed: Touba Toul proved to be more favourable for millet growth, with an overall performance increase of around 60% compared to Gossas. These findings suggest that combining biofertilization with fertilizer microdosing could be a promising strategy for sustainable pearl millet production in sahelian regions.

Published in International Journal of Applied Agricultural Sciences (Volume 12, Issue 4)
DOI 10.11648/j.ijaas.20261204.11
Page(s) 110-119
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group
Previous article
Keywords

Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum), Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF), Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR), Fertilizer Microdose, Inoculation

1. Introduction
Pearl millet is staple food crops in the sahelian regions of West Africa, playing an essential role in food security and enhancing the resilience of agricultural systems
[2, 38]
. Its remarkable ability to tolerate harsh climatic conditions, such as low and erratic rainfall, high temperatures and nutrient-deficient soils, makes it a strategic crop for smallholder farmers
[14, 21, 32]
. Despite this hardiness, pearl millet yields remain low, largely due to the progressive degradation of soil fertility and the inefficiency use of mineral fertilizer use
[23]
. Sahelian soils are generally characterized by low organic matter content, limited availability of essential nutrients and reduced biological activity
[1]
. These soil constraints severely limit nutrient uptake by plants and exacerbate nutrient losses through leaching, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus
[8]
. In this context, increasing mineral fertilizer does not guarantee sustainable yields improvement. On the contrary, excessive fertilizer application can contribute to further soil degradation and reduced nutrient use efficiency
[33, 34]
. Improving productivity through novel cropping-system approaches that integrate in situ soil fertility improvement techniques is, therefore attracting growing interest
[10, 11, 16]
. Soil microbes that enhance nutrient availability and uptake efficiency are, therefore valuable technologies. Beneficial soil microorganisms, particularly arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), play a key role in improving hydromineral nutrition, plant growth
[28, 36, 40, 42]
. Microdosing, which involves the direct application of small amounts of mineral fertilizers combined with organic matter near roots, optimizes nutrient use, increases input efficiency and lowers production cost
[15, 22, 24]
. Several studies have highlighted the positive effects of integrated fertilization and microbial inoculation on cereal crop productivity in tropical conditions
[14, 24, 29]
. However, plant responses to these practices depends heavily on soil characteristics and local agro-ecological conditions. Furthermore, the interactions between mineral fertilization, organic amendments and soil microorganisms remain insufficiently documented for pearl millet, particularly regarding their combined effects on growth, mycorrhization, physiological parameters and yield. In this context, the present study aims to evaluate the effect of microbial inoculation and microdosing fertilizer practices on the growth of pearl millet.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Soil Characterization
Figure 1. Geographical location of the soil sampling sites of Touba Toul and Gossas.
Table 1. Applied fertilizer treatments.

Treatments

Description

T0

Control (without any fertilization, or inoculation)

T1

Microdose = Compost (400g) + Urea (2g) + NPK (3g)

T2

AMF (Rhizoglomus irregularis + Rhizoglomus aggregatum) (20g)

T3

PGPR (LCM5016 + LCM 4370) (5mL)

T4

AMF (Rhizoglomus irregularis + Rhizoglomus aggregatum) (20g) + PGPR (LCM5016 + LCM 4370) (5mL)
The soils of this study were sampled in two locations in the peanut basin of Senegal: Touba Toul and Gossas (Figure 1). Three composite samples of 50 kg of soil were taken diagonally at depths of 5 - 20 cm from farmers’ plots where peanuts had been grown previously at each site. Analysis of Touba-Toul soil properties (Table 1) shows it is a sandy, hence light-textured and well-drained, but has low water holding capacity. It has low salinity and a favourable pH (6.8). It contains a low organic matter content of less than 2%. It is poor in available nitrogen and phosphorus, indicating that the soil requires amendments to improve fertility and would be favourable to mycorrhization. The properties of the Gossas soil (Table 1) show that it is predominantly sandy with a light texture, well-drained and with low water retention. It has low salinity, a slightly acidic pH (5.6) and low organic matter content. This soil is poor in assimilable phosphorus and total nitrogen, reflecting limited chemical fertility and a need for organic or mineral inputs to improve its productivity.
2.2. Plant Material
The seeds of pearl millet pre-base (Pennisetum glaucum) Souna 3 variety were supplied by the Seed Production Unit (UPSEM) of the Senegalese Agricultural Research Institute (ISRA). It is a short-cycle variety with a maturation period of 75-90 days, making it particularly suitable for regions with low and irregular rainfall. This widely cultivated variety is adapted to Sahelian agroecological conditions and is preferred by smallholder farmers in Senegal. Maize seeds (Zea mays) supplied by the Senegalese Company for the Production and Distribution of Tropical Seeds (TROPICASEM) were also used.
2.3. Fertilizers
The fungal inoculum is a mixture of two strains, Rhizoglomus irregularis and Rhizoglomus aggregatum, from the Laboratory of Fungal Biotechnology (LBC) of the Department of Plant Biology, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Senegal. Mycorrhizal inoculant for each endophyte consisted of mixed soil, spores, mycelium and infected root fragments from pot culture of Zea mays. Rhizoglomus isolate preparations with similar characteristics (an average of 40 spores per gram & 85% of infected roots) were used as inoculant. The bacterial inoculum consists of a liquid culture of strains LCM5016 and LCM4370 isolated from the rhizosphere of wheat and belonging to the collection of the Commun Microbiology Laboratory (LCM).
The fertilizers used are compost produced in this study, NPK mineral fertilizer (15 10 10) and urea (46%).
2.4. Assessment of Effect of Biofertilizers Inoculation and Fertilizer Microdosing on Millet Plants
Experimental trial implementation
The experiment was conducted in a greenhouse using a completely randomized design, with five treatments (T0: Control, T1: Microdose, T2: AMF, T3: PGPR, T4: AMF + PGPR) and five replicates (Table 2). Two types of unsterilized soils were used, with 25 pots per site. Each pot was filled with 3 kg of soil. Before sowing, 400 g of compost was incorporated into the soil, as well as 20 g of a mixed fungal inoculum composed of Rhizoglomus irregularis and Rhizoglomus aggregatum, depending on the treatment. Five seeds of pearl millet variety Souna 3 were then sown per pot. After germination, the seedlings were thinned to keep one plant per pot. Plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPR) inoculum was applied at a rate of 5 ml per pot according to the treatments. Mineral fertilization was carried out by applying per pot 3 g of NPK (15–10–10) ten days after seedling emergence, followed by 2 g of urea (46%) at the tillering stage. The pots were then arranged randomly and redistributed weekly. Watering was carried out every two days during three months.
Table 2. Physico-chemical characteristics of the soils of Touba-Toul and Gossas.

Component elements (content per 100g of soil)

Touba Toul

Gossas

Clay

3.6%

3.4%

Silt

1.6%

1.7%

Fine silt

2.9%

Nd

Fine sand

51%

4.3%

Medium sand

Nd

69.9%

Coarse sand

40.9%

20.8%

Conductivity

65 µs/cm

2 µs/cm

C

1.57%

2.23%

Organic matter

1.24%

1.41%

N

0.11%

0.21%

C / N

11%

11.6%

Total P

47 ppm

39 ppm

Assimilable phosphorus

3.1 ppm

2.1 ppm

pH (soil/water ratio 1: 2)

6.8

5.6
Nd = not determined
2.5. Parameters Assessed
Following parameters were measured initially: plant height and stem diameters at 2 cm from the base. number of leaves and tillers, chlorophyll content, Shoot and root biomass, and ear length Chlorophyll content was estimated using a SPAD chlorophyll meter. After harvest, dry biomass was obtained after oven drying the samples at 65°C during 5 days.
Percentage of mycorrhizal root infection was estimated by microscope observation of fungal colonization after clearing washed roots in 10% KOH and staining with 0.05% trypan blue in lactophenol (v/v), according to
[26]
. Mycorrhizal colonization was calculated according the method of
[31]
and the statistical tables of
[6]
. The frequency of mycorrhization were estimated according to
[35]
, to quantify the proportion of colonized roots and the degree of colonization of the root cortex, respectively.
2.6. Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using RStudio (version 2023.12.1-402). Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test, and analyses of variance were conducted accordingly. Data following a normal distribution were analyzed with ANOVA, while non-normal data were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test. Data visualization (boxplots) and multivariate analyses also performed in RStudio. Correlations between inoculated and non-inoculated parameters were assessed using Spearman’s test, and results from the two sites were compared using PCA.
3. Results
3.1. Effects of Biofertilizers and Microdosing on Millet Growth and Mycorrhization on Gossas Soil
3.1.1. Effect on Mycorrhization
Results on the effect on fertilization on millet mycorrhization in Gossas soil is showed in Figure 2. The microdose treatment (T1) stands out with the lowest frequency (3%), showing no significant difference from the control treatment T0, which has an intermediate frequency (47.8%). Conversely, the AMF treatment (T2) (66.6%), PGPR (T3) (75.4%) and AMF+PGPR (T4) (65.2%) treatments exhibit the highest frequencies and not significantly different from one another.
Figure 2. Frequency of mycorrhization of millet cultivated on Gossas soil under different inoculated and fertilized treatments.
3.1.2. Effect on Growth Parameters
No significant differences in plant height (p = 0.201), although the minimum height was observed in the T0 control (87.4 ± 16.56 cm) and the maximum in the T1 microdose (125.2 ± 33.38 cm) (Table 3).
Chlorophyll content did not differ significantly between treatments T1, T2, T3 and T4, with the highest value under T1 (38 SPAD). The control T0 had the lowest value (19 SPAD), comparable to T4.
In contrast, collar diameter varied significantly (p = 0.016). The AMF treatment (T2) showed the lowest value (3.57 ± 1.93 mm), with no significant difference from T0, T3 and T4, while the microdose (T1) recorded the highest value (16.65 ± 5.02 mm), comparable to T3 and T0.
The number of leaves differed significantly between treatments (p = 0.016), with a maximum under microdose T1 (27.0 ± 16.01), significantly comparable to T2 and T3. The lowest values were observed with double inoculation T4 (7.6 ± 2.3), with no significant difference from T0.
Shoot biomass varied significantly (p = 0.005), with a minimum value under T0 (1.44 ± 0.88 g), comparable to T2, T3 and T4, and a maximum value under microdose T1 (15.48 ± 1.32 g), significantly comparable to T3 and T4. This increase in biomass for T1 is 975% compared to T0. Similarly, root biomass shows highly significant differences (p = 0.005). The lowest value was observed with double inoculation T4 (0.68 ± 0.11 g), comparable to T0, T2 and T3, while microdose T1 had the highest value (4.34 ± 1.3 g), comparable to T0 and T2.
Table 3. Variation in growth and biomass parameters of millet plants inoculated and cultivated on Gossas soil.

Treatment

Plant height (cm)

Chlorophyll content (SPAD)

Neck diameter (mm)

Number of leaves

Shoot biomass (g)

Root biomass (g)

T0

87.4 ± 16.56 a

18.89 ± 0.43 a

5.9 ± 3.38 ab

8.2 ± 3.27 a

1.44 ± 0.88 a

1.04 ± 0.7 ab

T1

125.2 ± 33.38 a

38.65 ±5.02 b

16.65 ±5.02 b

27.0 ± 16.01 b

15.48 ± 1.32 b

4.34 ± 1.3 b

T2

92.8 ± 17.9 a

35.43 ± 0.38 b

3.57 ± 1.93 a

9.2 ± 1.3 ab

1.62 ± 1.00 a

1.36 ± 0.76 ab

T3

94.2 ± 13.36 a

32.31 ± 3.8 b

4.00 ± 0.43 ab

8.8 ± 0.83 ab

1.8 ± 0.94 ab

0.8 ± 0.15 a

T4

93.8 ± 15.27 a

19.06±3.59 ab

3.96 ± 1.27 a

7.6 ± 2.3 a

1.92 ± 0.67 ab

0.68 ± 0.11 a

Average ± SD

98.88±23.26

28.86±9.5

6.82±5.73

12.16±10.17

4.46±5.95

1.64±1.55

RESUME (%)

24

32.9

84

84

133

95

p-value

0.201

0.016*

0.016*

0.016*

0.005**

0.005*
Codes: 0 "***" 0.001 "**" 0.01 "*" 0.05 "." 0.1 " " 1 (significant difference according to Dunn's test); Mean ± SD (total mean plus or minus standard deviation); CV (coefficient of variation). Values represent the mean of 5 replicates. Means followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different at the 5% level according to Dunn's test. The highest statistically significant values are assigned the letter "b".
3.1.3. Effect on Ears Length
No significant differences on Ears length were found among the treatments (Figure 3). However, the microdose treatment (T1) showed the highest value of ear lengths (12.8 cm). The shortest ear lengths were recorded under bacterial treatment (T3) with an average length of 4.8 cm.
Figure 3. Effect of biofertilizers inoculation and microdose on ear length of millet cultivated on Gossas soil.
3.2. Effect of Biofertilizers and Microdosing on the Growth and Mycorrhization of Millet on Touba Toul Soil
3.2.1. Effect of Mycorrhization
Results on the effect on fertilization on millet mycorrhization in Touba toul soil are showed in Figure 4. Treatment T1 stands out clearly with the lowest frequency (5.6%), which is significantly different to that of treatment T0 (75%). In contrast, treatments T2 (95.4%), T3 (83%) and T4 (92.1%) show very high frequencies that are not significantly different from each other.
Figure 4. Frequency of mycorrhization of millet cultivated in Touba Toul soil, under different inoculated and fertilized treatments.
3.2.2. Effect on Growth Parameters of Millet Plants
Analysis of the results shows (Table 4) that the greatest heights were obtained with treatments T1 (142 cm) and T2 (138.4 cm), which are significantly comparable to each other and to treatments T0 (128 cm) and T3 (125 cm) while the lowest height was significantly noted with treatment T4 (112.4 cm). The chlorophyll content varied significantly (p=0.001). The lowest value was noted with the PGPR treatment (T3) (4.74 ± 0.9 SPAD value), showing no significant difference from treatments T0, T2 and T4. The highest value was observed with the microdose treatment (T1) (37.42 ± 3.31 SPAD value), which showed no significant difference from treatments T2 and T0. Significant effects were observed for collar diameter (p = 0.023) with the PGPR treatment (T3) (6.02 ± 0.53 mm), recording the lowest value and showing no significant difference from treatments T0, T2, T3 and T4. The microdose treatment (T1) showed the highest value (15.42 ± 5.07 mm) and did not differ significantly difference from treatment T4.
The number of leaves varied significantly, treatments T3 and T4 (6.8 ± 0.83 and 6.8 ± 1.3) respectively showed the lowest values, and were significantly comparable to each other and to treatments T0 and T2. Treatment T1 showed the highest leaf count (15.4 ± 7.09) and was not significantly different from treatments T0 and T4.
No significant difference was noted among treatments for the number of shoots (p=0.213). However, treatment T1 had the highest value (1.8), while treatments T0, T3 and T4, had the lowest values.
Shoot biomass varied significantly. Treatment T0 had the lowest value (7.18 ± 1.53 g), not significantly different from treatments T0, T2, T3 and T4. Treatment T1 has the highest value (23.22 ± 6.63 g), not significantly different from treatments T2 and T3, representing an increase of more than 200% compared to the control.
A significant difference was noted for root biomass. The double inoculation treatment T4 showed the lowest value (1.38 ± 0.67 g) and was not significantly different from treatments T0, T2 and T3. The microdose treatment T1 showed the highest value (4.04 ± 1.32 g) and was no significantly different from treatments T2 and T3.
Table 4. Variation in growth and biomass parameters of millet plants cultivated on the soil of Touba Toul.

Treatment

Plant height (cm)

Chlorophyll content (SPAD value)

Neck diameter (mm)

Number of leaves

Shoot biomass (g)

Root biomass (g)

T0

124.2 ± 20.60 ab

14.56 ± 7.57 ab

6.63 ± 1.33 a

8.4 ± 2.07 ab

7.18 ± 1.53 a

1.98 ± 0.88 ab

T1

139.2 ± 14.11 b

37.42 ± 3.31 b

15.42 ±5.07 b

15.4 ± 7.09 b

23.22 ± 6.63 b

4.04 ± 1.32 b

T2

138.4 ± 13.22 b

8.4 ± 3.0 ab

6.12 ± 0.96 a

8.0 ± 3.0 ab

9.88 ± 2.06 ab

1.94 ± 1.00 ab

T3

128.6 ± 8.64 ab

4.74 ± 0.9 a

6.02 ± 0.53 a

6.8 ± 0.83 a

9.14 ± 0.9 ab

1.54 ± 0.94 ab

T4

112.4 ± 6.64 a

4.96 ± 1.86 a

7.89 ± 1.84 ab

6.8 ± 1.3 a

8.64 ± 0.94 a

1.38 ± 0.67 a

Average ± SD

128.56±15.97

14.01±13.01

7.93±4.48

9.08±4.67

11.61±6.68

2.17±1.33

RESUME (%)

12.42

93

56

51

58

61

p-value

0.043*

0.001**

0.023*

0.019*

0.002**

0.04*
Codes: 0 "***" 0.001 "**" 0.01 "*" 0.05 "." 0.1 " " 1 (significant difference according to Dunn's test); Mean ± SD (total mean plus or minus standard deviation); CV (coefficient of variation).
Values represent the mean of 5 replicates. Means followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different at the 5% level according to Dunn's test.
The highest statistically significant values are assigned the letter "b".
3.2.3. Effect on the Ear Length of Millet Plants
Ears length showed no significant differences between treatments (Figure 5) indicating treatments applied had no effect on millet ear length. However, treatment T3 showed the highest value (23.2 cm) and treatment T0 the lowest value (20 cm).
Figure 5. Effect of biofertilizers inoculation and microdose on ear length of millet cultivated on Touba Toul soil.
4. Discussion
Microdose treatment (T1) produced the best results in terms of vegetative growth (collar diameter, leaf number), biomass and yield. The combined supply of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium promotes chlorophyll synthesis, energy metabolism (ATP) and photosynthetic efficiency, respectively
[13, 20]
. Combining with compost enhances these effects by improving the biological and chemical properties of the soil
[3, 9]
. These results are consistent with studies carried out in the Sahel showing the effectiveness of fertilizer microdosing in improving millet and sorghum productivity
[12, 19, 25]
. However, inoculations with biofertilizers alone did not significantly improve plant millet growth compared to plant control, despite a good mycorrhization. This lack of effect could be explained by the severe nutrient limitation in the studied soils, which restricts the functional effectiveness of AMF and PGPR
[4, 7, 37]
. Because biofertilizers needed minimum nutrients for its metabolism, and if not these biofertilizer organisms eventually starve to death, go into dormancy or die before they have had a chance to establish themselves in the rhizosphere
[17]
. Moreover, in non-sterilized, native strains which are better adapted to the soil, could be in competition with introduced biofertilizer strains and out pass them. Furthermore, the AMF+PGPR combination did not generate any notable synergy compared to microdose, suggesting that the test conditions or interactions between native microorganisms did not allow the optimal expression of their complementary effects
[30, 41]
.
Finally, pearl millet performance was generally better in Touba Toul soil, with marked increases in shoot biomass and yield. This difference in inoculation response between the two soils could be explained mainly by the soil texture, which offers better water and nutrient retention, as well as a pH more favorable to phosphorus absorption
[18, 39]
. These results confirm that crop response to inoculation and fertilization are highly dependent on local soil conditions
[5, 27]
.
5. Conclusion
Overall, inoculation with biofertilizers (AMF, PGPR and AMF+PGPR) improved root colonization, confirming their ability to stimulate mycorrhizal symbiosis. However, these treatments did not allow very significant gains in growth and yield compared to the control, likely due to the poor nutrient content of the soils. Conversely, organo-mineral fertilization (microdose) produced the best agronomic performance (growth, biomass, yield), confirming the effectiveness of direct inputs of assimilable nutrients. A combined strategy, that integrates biofertilization (AMF and PGPR) with microdosing, appears to be a promising approach to reconcile agricultural productivity, with reduced fertilizer costs and environmental sustainability.
Abbreviations

AMF

Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi

PGPR

Plant Growth-promoting Rhizobacteria

NPK

Mineral Fertilizer, Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium

LBC

Laboratory of Fungal Biotechnology (LBC)

LCM

Laboratory of Microbiology IRD/ISRA/UCAD

ANOVA

Analysis of Variance
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Cheikh NDIAYE for their technical assistance.
Author Contributions
Khady Diaw: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft
Ramatoulaye Thiaba Samba: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Malick Ndiaye: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Mame Arame Fall Ndiaye: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing
Funding
This study was supported by the consortium Research Center for International Development (CRDI) and the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation (MESRI) from Senegal (SGCI2 Program).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare any conflict of interest for this research.
References
[1] Bationo, A., Kihara, J., Vanlauwe, B., Waswa, B., Kimetu, J. Soil organic carbon dynamics, functions and management in West African agro-ecosystems. Agricultural Systems. 2007, 94(1), 13‑25.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.08.011

[2] Debieu, M., Sine, B., Passot, S., Grondin, A., Akata, E., Gangashetty, P., Vadez, V., Gantet, P., Foncéka, D., Cournac, L., Hash, C. T., Kane, N. A., Vigouroux, Y., Laplaze, L. Response to early drought stress and identification of QTLs controlling biomass production under drought in pearl millet. PLOS ONE. 2018, 13(10), e0201635.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201635

[3] Diacono, M., Montemurro, F. Long-Term Effects of Organic Amendments on Soil Fertility. In E. Lichtfouse, M. Hamelin, M. Navarrete, & P. Debaeke (Éds.), Sustainable Agriculture Springer Netherlands. 2011, 1, 761‑786.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0394-0_34

[4] Dickie, I. A., Alexander, I., Lennon, S., Öpik, M., Selosse, M.-A., van Der Heijden, M. G., Martin, F. M. Evolving insights to understanding mycorrhizas. New Phytologist. 2015, 205(4), 1369‑1374.

https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13290

[5] Faye, A., Stewart, Z. P., Diome, K., Edward, C.-T., Fall, D., Ganyo, D. K. K., Akplo, T. M., Prasad, P. V. V. Single Application of Biochar Increases Fertilizer Efficiency, C Sequestration, and pH over the Long-Term in Sandy Soils of Senegal. Sustainability. 2021, 13(21), 11817.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111817

[6] Fisher, R. A., Yates, F. Statistical tables for biological, agricultural and medical research. 1963, 449.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1401452

[7] Gamalero, E., Glick, B. R. Bacterial modulation of plant ethylene levels. Plant Physiology. 2015, 169(1), 13–22.

https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.15.00284

[8] Gandah, M., Bouma, J., Brouwer, J., Hiernaux, P., Van Duivenbooden, N. Strategies to optimize allocation of limited nutrients to sandy soils of the Sahel: A case study from Niger, west Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2003, 94(3), 311‑319.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00035-X

[9] Goswami, L., Nath, A., Sutradhar, S., Bhattacharya, S. S., Kalamdhad, A., Vellingiri, K., Kim, K.-H. Application of drum compost and vermicompost to improve soil health, growth, and yield parameters for tomato and cabbage plants. Journal of Environmental Management. 2017, 200, 243‑252.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.073

[10] Gram, G., Roobroeck, D., Pypers, P., Six, J., Merckx, R., Vanlauwe, B. Combining organic and mineral fertilizers as a climate-smart integrated soil fertility management practice in sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. 2020, 15(9), e0239552.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239552

[11] Gupta, G., Dhar, S., Kumar, A., Choudhary, A. K., Dass, A., Sharma, V. K., Shukla, L., Upadhyay, P. K., Das, A., Jinger, D., Rajpoot, S. K., Sannagoudar, M. S., Kumar, A., Bhupenchandra, I., Tyagi, V., Joshi, E., Kumar, K., Dwivedi, P., Rajawat, M. V. S. Microbes-mediated integrated nutrient management for improved rhizo-modulation, pigeonpea productivity, and soil bio-fertility in a semi-arid agro-ecology. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2022, 13, 924407.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.924407

[12] Ibrahim, A. L. I., Abaidoo, R. C., Fatondji, D., Opoku, A. Determinants of fertilizer microdosing-induced yield increment of pearl millet on an acid sandy soil. Experimental Agriculture. 2016, 52(4), 562‑578.

https://doi.org/10.1017/s0014479715000241

[13] Jiaying, M, Tingting, C., Jie, L., Weimeng, F., Baohua, F., Li, G., Li, H., Li, J., Zhihai, W., Longxing, T., Fu, G. Functions of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium in Energy Status and Their Influences on Rice Growth and Development. Rice Science. 2021, 29 (2), 166-178.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsci.2022.01.005

[14] Joshi, S., Joshi N., Tariq A., Khursheed M., Jan R., Singh, K. C., Sultan A., Kashyap M., Rajgonda K. P., Tutlani A. Integrating Biofertilizers in Nutrient Management of Millets: A Review of Advances and Prospects. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 2025, 47(11), 638–653.

https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2025/v47i113903

[15] Kolapo, A., Oluwatayo, I. B., Ayojimi, W., Eniola, A. T., Sieber, S. Enhancing fertilizer-use-efficiency through fertilizer microdosing as climate-smart practices among crop farmers in North Central, Nigeria. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2025, 9, 1497716.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1497716

[16] Kugedera, A. T., Trivedi, A., Nandeha, N., Biswas, A. Agroforestry and integrated nutrient management as climate-smart agro-technologies for soil health and climate change mitigation: A review on African and Asian regions. Discover Agriculture. 2025, 3(1), 272.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s44279-025-00463-6

[17] Kumar S., Diksha, Sindhu S. S., Kumar R. Biofertilizers: An ecofriendly technology for nutrient recycling and environmental sustainability. Current Research in Microbial Science. 2021, 20 (3): 100094.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crmicr.2021.100094

[18] Lal, R. Soil organic matter content and crop yield. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 2020, 75(2), 1.

https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.75.2

[19] Ludemann, C. I., Gruere, A., Heffer, P., Dobermann, A. Global data on fertilizer use by crop and by country. Scientific data. 2022, 9(1), 501.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01592-z

[20] Marschner, H. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. Academic Press, Third Edition. 2012, 369-388.
[21] Merga, D. Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) Breeding for Adaptation and Performance Under Drought Condition: Review. Journal of Environment and Earth Science. 2020, 10(4), 1.

https://doi.org/10.7176/JEES/10-4-01

[22] Ndiaye M, Mollier A, Diouf A, Diop TA. Mycorrhizal inoculation and fertilizer microdosing interactions in pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) under greenhouse conditions. Frontiers in Fungal Biology. 2024, 5: 1448156.

https://doi.org/10.3389/ffunb.2024.1448156

[23] Nishigaki, T., Ikazaki, K., Shinjo, H., Tanaka, U., Fatondji, D., Funakawa, S. Pearl millet yield reduction by soil erosion and its recovery potential through fertilizer application on an Arenosol in the Sahel. Soil and Tillage Research. 2025, 246, 106324.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2024.106324

[24] Ouedraogo, Y., J.-B. S. Taonda, I. Sermé, B. Tychon, J. T. Cornelis, H. B. Nacro, C. L. Bielders. “Fertiliser Microdosing and Organic Amendments as an Integrated Soil Fertility Management Strategy: Evidence From On-Farm Sorghum Trials in Burkina Faso. Soil Use and Management. 2026, 42(1): e70182.

https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.70182

[25] Ouedraogo, Y., Taonda, J S., Sermé, I., Tychon, B., Bielders, C L. Factors driving cereal response to fertilizer microdosing in sub‐Saharan Africa: A meta‐analysis. Agronomy Journal. 2020, 112(4), 2418‑2431.

https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20229

[26] Phillips, J. M., Hayman, D. S. Improved procedures for clearing roots and staining parasitic and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi for rapid assessment of infection. Transactions of the British mycological Society. 1970, 55(1), 158-IN18.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0007-1536(70)80110-3

[27] Ramírez, P. B., Calderón, F. J., Vigil, M. F., Mankin, K. R., Poss, D., Fonte, S. J. Dryland Winter Wheat Production and Its Relationship to Fine-Scale Soil Carbon Heterogeneity—A Case Study in the US Central High Plains. Agronomy. 2023, 13(10), 2600.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13102600

[28] Samba, R. T., Faye, M. S., Diouf, D., Ndiaye C., Tendeng P., Sylla, S. N. Synergic effect of Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and rhizobia on Vachellia nilotica subsp adansonii (Guill & Perr) Kuntze's symbiotic properties and growth under salinity conditions. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation. 2026, 18(1), 67-81.

https://doiorg/105897/IJBC20251676

[29] Sanoussi, S. İ. M., Dougbedji, F., Matthew, E., Okhimamhe, A. a, Ibrahim, A., Sule, İ. Assessing soil nutrient change under long-term application of mineral fertilizer micro-dosing to pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] on a sahelian sandy soil. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science. 2020, 9(1), 34‑42.

https://doi.org/10.18393/ejss.642212

[30] Savastano, N., Bais, H. Synergism or Antagonism: Do Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Work Together to Benefit Plants? International Journal of Plant Biology. 2024, 15(4), 944‑958.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijpb15040067

[31] Sieverding, E., Friedrichsen, J., Suden, W. Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza management in tropical agrosystems. 1991.

https://agris.fao.org/search/en/providers/122438/records/6477592af2e6fe92b365e1bf

[32] Silungwe, F. R., Graef, F., Dorothea Bellingrath-Kimura, S., Chilagane, E. A., Tumbo, S. D., Kahimba, F. C., Lana, M. A. Modelling rainfed pearl millet yield sensitivity to abiotic stresses in semi-arid central Tanzania, Eastern Africa. Sustainability. 2019, 11(16), 4330.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164330

[33] Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature. 2002, 418(6898), 671‑677.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01014

[34] Tittonell, P., Giller, K. E. When yield gaps are poverty traps: The paradigm of ecological intensification in African smallholder agriculture. Field Crops Research. 2013, 143, 76‑90.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.10.007

[35] Trouvelot, A. Measurement of the mycorrhization rate of a root system. Research on estimation methods with functional relevance. Physiological and genetical aspects of mycorrhizae. 1986, 217‑221.
[36] Vafa, Z. N., Sohrabi, Y., Sayyed, R. Z., Luh Suriani, N., Datta, R. Effects of the combinations of rhizobacteria, mycorrhizae, and seaweed, and supplementary irrigation on growth and yield in wheat cultivars. Plants. 2021, 10(4), 811.

https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10040811

[37] Van der Heijden, M. G. A., Martin, F. M., Selosse, M. A., Sanders, I. R. Mycorrhizal ecology and evolution: the past, the present, and the future. New Phytologist. 2015, 205(4), 1406–1423.

https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13288

[38] Vieira Junior, N., Carcedo, A. J. P., Min, D., Diatta, A. A., Araya, A., Prasad, P. V., Diallo, A., Ciampitti, I. Management interventions of pearl millet systems for attaining cereal self-sufficiency in Senegal. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2024, 7, 1281496.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1281496

[39] Weil, R. R., Brady, N. C. The nature and properties of soils (Fifteenth edition). Pearson. 2017.
[40] Xing, Y., Xie, Y., & Wang, X. (2025). Enhancing soil health through balanced fertilization: a pathway to sustainable agriculture and food security. Frontiers in microbiology, 16, 1536524.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1536524

[41] Yang, K., Zhang, Q., Zhu, J., Wang, Q., Gao, T., Wang, G. G. Mycorrhizal type regulates trade-offs between plant and soil carbon in forests. Nature Climate Change. 2024, 14(1), 91‑97.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01864-5

[42] Yu, L., Zhang H., Zhang W., Liu K., Liu M., Shao X. Cooperation between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting bacteria and their effects on plant growth and soil quality. PeerJ. 2022, 10: e13080.

https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13080

Cite This Article
Plain Text BibTeX RIS

  • APA Style

    Diaw, K., Samba, R. T., Ndiaye, M., Ndiaye, M. A. F. (2026). Effect of fertilizer Microdosing of and Microbial Inoculation on Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br) Growth on Two Soils of the Peanut Basin of Senegal. International Journal of Applied Agricultural Sciences, 12(4), 110-119. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijaas.20261204.11

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Diaw, K.; Samba, R. T.; Ndiaye, M.; Ndiaye, M. A. F. Effect of fertilizer Microdosing of and Microbial Inoculation on Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br) Growth on Two Soils of the Peanut Basin of Senegal. Int. J. Appl. Agric. Sci. 2026, 12(4), 110-119. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaas.20261204.11

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Diaw K, Samba RT, Ndiaye M, Ndiaye MAF. Effect of fertilizer Microdosing of and Microbial Inoculation on Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br) Growth on Two Soils of the Peanut Basin of Senegal. Int J Appl Agric Sci. 2026;12(4):110-119. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaas.20261204.11

    Copy | Download 

  • @article{10.11648/j.ijaas.20261204.11,
  author = {Khady Diaw and Ramatoulaye Thiaba Samba and Malick Ndiaye and Mame Arame Fall Ndiaye},
  title = {Effect of fertilizer Microdosing of and Microbial Inoculation on Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br) Growth on Two Soils of the Peanut Basin of Senegal},
  journal = {International Journal of Applied Agricultural Sciences},
  volume = {12},
  number = {4},
  pages = {110-119},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijaas.20261204.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijaas.20261204.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijaas.20261204.11},
  abstract = {Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br) is a very important cereal crop in the semi-arid regions of West Africa, serving as a primary food source for local populations. Therefore, its productivity remains lowered by soil degradation and low availability of inputs as fertilizers. In this context, biofertilizers and organic amendments offer sustainable and ecological alternatives for enhancing crop performance. This study aims to contribute to improve pearl millet production through the application of biofertilizers arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) combined with microdose NPK. The research focuses on two soils of the peanut basin of Senegal (Touba Toul and Gossas). Thus, a greenhouse experiment was conducted using a completely randomized block design with five treatments (control, microdose, fungal inoculation (AMF), bacterial inoculation (PGPR) and dual inoculation (AMF+PGPR)) and five replicates, on each of the two soils. The parameters assessed included mycorrhization, collar diameter, number of leaves, chlorophyll content, shoot and root biomass, and ears length. Results revealed that, the microdose generated the best agronomic performance, including 46% increase in chlorophyll content and 30% increase in collar diameter compared to control. The AMF, PGPR and AMF+PGPR treatments showed more variable effects. While close to some parameters such as shoot biomass, improved significantly (up to 20% increase), but with no significant improvement in root biomass (1.02% increase). A notable site effect was observed: Touba Toul proved to be more favourable for millet growth, with an overall performance increase of around 60% compared to Gossas. These findings suggest that combining biofertilization with fertilizer microdosing could be a promising strategy for sustainable pearl millet production in sahelian regions.},
 year = {2026}
}

    Copy | Download 

  • TY  - JOUR
T1  - Effect of fertilizer Microdosing of and Microbial Inoculation on Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br) Growth on Two Soils of the Peanut Basin of Senegal
AU  - Khady Diaw
AU  - Ramatoulaye Thiaba Samba
AU  - Malick Ndiaye
AU  - Mame Arame Fall Ndiaye
Y1  - 2026/07/03
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijaas.20261204.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijaas.20261204.11
T2  - International Journal of Applied Agricultural Sciences
JF  - International Journal of Applied Agricultural Sciences
JO  - International Journal of Applied Agricultural Sciences
SP  - 110
EP  - 119
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2469-7885
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijaas.20261204.11
AB  - Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br) is a very important cereal crop in the semi-arid regions of West Africa, serving as a primary food source for local populations. Therefore, its productivity remains lowered by soil degradation and low availability of inputs as fertilizers. In this context, biofertilizers and organic amendments offer sustainable and ecological alternatives for enhancing crop performance. This study aims to contribute to improve pearl millet production through the application of biofertilizers arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) combined with microdose NPK. The research focuses on two soils of the peanut basin of Senegal (Touba Toul and Gossas). Thus, a greenhouse experiment was conducted using a completely randomized block design with five treatments (control, microdose, fungal inoculation (AMF), bacterial inoculation (PGPR) and dual inoculation (AMF+PGPR)) and five replicates, on each of the two soils. The parameters assessed included mycorrhization, collar diameter, number of leaves, chlorophyll content, shoot and root biomass, and ears length. Results revealed that, the microdose generated the best agronomic performance, including 46% increase in chlorophyll content and 30% increase in collar diameter compared to control. The AMF, PGPR and AMF+PGPR treatments showed more variable effects. While close to some parameters such as shoot biomass, improved significantly (up to 20% increase), but with no significant improvement in root biomass (1.02% increase). A notable site effect was observed: Touba Toul proved to be more favourable for millet growth, with an overall performance increase of around 60% compared to Gossas. These findings suggest that combining biofertilization with fertilizer microdosing could be a promising strategy for sustainable pearl millet production in sahelian regions.
VL  - 12
IS  - 4
ER  -

    Copy | Download

Author Information

  • Khady Diaw

    Department of Plant Biology, University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar (UCAD), Dakar, Senegal;Laboratory of Fungal Biotechnology (LBC), University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar (UCAD), Dakar, Senegal

  • Ramatoulaye Thiaba Samba

    Department of Plant Biology, University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar (UCAD), Dakar, Senegal;Laboratory of Microbiology IRD/ISRA/UCAD (LCM), Research Center of Bel-Air, Dakar, Senegal

    Contact Email

    http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6961-708X

  • Malick Ndiaye

    Department of Plant Biology, University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar (UCAD), Dakar, Senegal;Laboratory of Fungal Biotechnology (LBC), University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar (UCAD), Dakar, Senegal

    http://orcid.org/0009-0007-8653-0393

  • Mame Arame Fall Ndiaye

    Department of Plant Biology, University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar (UCAD), Dakar, Senegal;Laboratory of Fungal Biotechnology (LBC), University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar (UCAD), Dakar, Senegal

Download PDF
Submit an Article
  • Abstract
  • Keywords

  • Document Sections

    1. 1. Introduction
    2. 2. Materials and Methods
    3. 3. Results
    4. 4. Discussion
    5. 5. Conclusion
    Show Full Outline
  • Abbreviations
  • Acknowledgments
  • Author Contributions
  • Funding
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • References
  • Cite This Article
  • Author Information

About Us

Science Publishing Group (SciencePG) is an Open Access publisher, with more than 300 online, peer-reviewed journals covering a wide range of academic disciplines.

Learn More About SciencePG

Products

Information

Important Link

Copyright © 2012 -- 2026 Science Publishing Group – All rights reserved.