Effect of Different Biofertilizer Applications on Soil Health, Tomato Growth, and Yield

Effect of Different Biofertilizer Applications on Soil Health, Tomato Growth, and Yield | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Effect of Different Biofertilizer Applications on Soil Health, Tomato Growth, and Yield Shaila Sharmin, Abdullah Al Kafi, Jamini Azad Kolmi, Md. Nazmul Hasan Arfin, and 4 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8524005/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Biofertilizers, including Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria (PSB), Azotobacter, and Trichoderma, play a vital role in enhancing soil fertility, nutrient uptake, and sustainable crop productivity by improving crop growth and yield. This study aimed to assess the effects of biofertilizer on the growth and yield of tomato plants and on soil health. The experiment was carried out implementing a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with four replications. The study consisted of six treatments combinations and the treatments consisted of the following groups: T 0 = Control, T 1 = recommended dose of chemical fertilizer (RDF), T 2 = (75% RDF) + Azotobacter, T 3 = (75% RDF) + Phosphorus Solubilizing bacteria (PSB), T 4 = (75% RDF) + PSB + Azotobacter, T 5 = (75% RDF) + PSB + Azotobacter + Trichoderma. The maximum growth and yield data were recorded from T 5 with plant height (84.67 cm), leaves per plant (54), leaf length (8 cm), branches per plant (5.56), flowers per plant (16.62), flowers cluster per plant (4.93), fruits per cluster (4.68), number of fruits per plant (25.75), individual fruit weight (54.43 g), yield per plant (1.35 kg), yield per plot (8.13 kg), and yield per hectare (81.31 ton), yield increase over control 117.81%, most considerable individual fruit length of (32.95 cm), fruit diameter (32.23 cm), fresh weight (156.50g) and dry weight of the plant (119g). On the other hand, T 0 showed negative results in most of the studied parameters compared to other treatments. Correlation and multivariate analyses further revealed strong positive associations among yield-related traits, including fruit yield per plant, individual fruit weight, and leaf number, indicating their key contribution to overall productivity. The hierarchical cluster heatmap clearly separated T 5 due to its superior response across traits, while principal component analysis (PCA) explained 75.4% of the total variance, clearly differentiating biofertilizer treatments by performance. Overall, the T 5 demonstrated superior values for these features in comparison to the other treatments. The findings suggest that integrating PSB, Azotobacter, and Trichoderma with reduced chemical fertilizers can effectively enhance tomato productivity while promoting sustainable soil health. Biofertilizer PSB Azotobactor Trichoderma Tomato Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 1. Introduction Tomato is a member of the Solanaceae family, Lycopersiconesculentum . This plant is native to tropical America, especially Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia in the Andes [ 1 ]. According to Haque et al.[ 2 ], which is a significant and largely cultivated vegetable voicing off in winter as well as summer season in Bangladesh with an average output of 8.72 metric tons per hectare, Bangladesh produced 103 metric tons of tomatoes from a total area of 18,16,000 hectares in 2010 [ 3 ]. The yield is significantly lower than in other countries that cultivate tomatoes. The utilization of low-yielding cultivars, the increasing incidence of pests, the increased use of chemical fertilizers, and the significant postharvest losses of 20–60% are all responsible for the low crop output [ 4 ]. There is a growing need to equip farmers with strategies for integrated soil fertility management (ISFM), which supplements chemical fertilizers with organic and biofertilizers to conserve soil health and promote crop productivity. Tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L.) is a horticultural crop with one of the highest yields and is among the most important economic vegetable crops, grown both within and outside greenhouses worldwide in terms of both socio-economic value and nutritional significance. Tomatoes contain potent antioxidants, including lycopene, β-carotene, phenolic compounds, and vitamin C. These bioactives play a significant role in protecting against chronic diseases, such as certain cancers and cardiovascular diseases, and also contribute to human well-being. Though its significant contribution, tomato production has recorded a declining yield trend over the past decade, attributed to soil nutrient depletion, inappropriate fertilizer use, pest and disease pressure, and variability [ 1 ]. For example, global yields reduced from 11.3 t ha⁻¹ in 2010 to 9.7 t ha⁻¹ in 2014 [ 5 ]. Despite this, the application of biofertilizers (such as phosphate-solubilising and nitrogen-fixing microorganisms) is a potentially environmentally-friendly approach to enhance nutrients bioavailability and soil fertility alongside tomato yield in diverse cropping areas [ 6 ]. The non-symbiotic nitrogen fixers commonly encountered in non-leguminous crops are Azotobacter and Azospirillum. The positive influences of these bacteria on plants' growth seem to be related mainly to their capacity to stimulate root development, to increase the uptake of water and minerals by roots, and to suppress fungal pathogenic species (fungi) or even bacteria. However, they also exhibit some biological N 2 Fixation. Further, these bacteria synthesize plant growth-promoting compounds (PGPCs), such as indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) and gibberellins, which ultimately promote plant growth. They also contribute to soil health by decreasing soil compaction and increasing soil microbial biodiversity. They are attracting more attention for their application in agriculture by replacing chemical fertilizers and to form an eco-friendly farming system [ 7 , 8 ]. Phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB) are one of the important soil microorganisms which make phosphorus available to plant, thus contribute for sustainable agriculture. These bacteria could be utilized to convert insoluble inorganic phosphorus into available form for plants. Apart from the genetic adaptation of plants to phosphorus nutrition, the most important is certainly also that by root sorbed microbes it can be solubilized phosphate compounds. The main mechanism system to this process is the release of low-molecular-weight organic acids, which can be cation-chelating and pH-lowering in the solid environment in supporting phosphate solubilization [ 9 ]. In addition to phosphate solubilization, PSB also promotes root growth, nutrient intake and crop growth in plants treated under low-nutrient circumstances. They aid in soil fertility through activation of microbial activity and enzyme synthesis, enhancing nutrient dynamics. It is an eco-friendly substitute for chemical phosphorus fertilizer that can decrease not only human input but also environmental pollution. Furthermore, incorporating pH into crop production systems promotes sustainable soil management and enhances long-term agricultural productivity [ 10 ].Biofertilizers are organic products derived from living cells that help increase soil fertility and crop productivity.MR based on the beneficial microorganisms bio-component developed, such as bacteria, fungi, and blue-green algae. These microbes, such as nitrogen-fixing and phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria, help to make soil nutrients more available, making plants healthier. It ensures the activity of oligoazotrophic bacteria composing the strain (which amounts to 100 ml or less), as this level is higher than in any organic fertilizers now, since each gram of biofertilizer contains no less than 10 million living cells of a specific strain. This efficiency can lead to reduced chemical use in an operation consistent with sustainable agriculture. The biofertilizers play a significant role in maintaining soil health as well as reducing dependency on chemically synthesized fertilizers, sustaining the long-term fertility of soils and their environment [ 11 , 12 ]. In agricultural fields, biofertilizers are also an important input for the reduction in the use of chemicals for soil fertility requirements as they exploit micro symbionts symbiotic activities in crops. Mineral fertilizers offer instant nutrition, resulting in organic matter reduction and soil acidification as well as repeated cropping. Biofertilizer for restoring soil health increasing accumulation of organic matter and stabilisation of pH. This integrated system approach reduces the adverse effects of synthetic fertilisers on the environment and improves sustainable soil productivity [ 13 ]. It is essential to adopt integrated soil fertility management in this specific situation, as with all other crops, which includes the use of both bio-fertilizers and inorganic fertilizers. In Bangladesh, there are currently a few organizations that specialize in the non-commercial production of enhanced biofertilizers. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of Trichoderma, phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB), and Azotobacterbiofertilizers on tomato growth, yield performance, and soil health improvement for sustainable crop production. 2. Materials and methods Experimental site and soil characteristics Experimental fieldwork was conducted at the IUBAT Agricultural Research Station in Bason, Gazipur, Dhaka, Bangladesh, from January to April of 2021 to assess the effects of biofertilizer on tomato growth and yield under varied treatment conditions. The soil is classified within the agroecological zone Modhupur Tract (AEZ 28). The trial site was 8.45 meters above sea level and located at 27 degrees North, 40 degrees East[ 14 ]. The soil's texture is sandy loam. When the chemical qualities of the soil in the research region were first examined, the following findings were obtained according to Kumar et al.[ 15 ],: pH 6.6, organic matter 1.2%, nitrogen (N) 0.10%, potassium (K) 0.19 (meq/100gm), phosphorus (P) 10.2 (µg/g), sulphur (S) 13.7 (µg/g), calcium (Ca) 4.28 (µg/g), magnesium (Mg) 1.60 (meq/100g), zinc (Zn) 1.98 (µg/g), and boron (B) 0.35 (µg/g). Test crop and intercultural operations BARI Tomato 15 was the variety of plant used in this study. The seeds were sown in December 2020. The 30-day-old seedlings were transplanted into the main field after land preparation and the first fertilization, in accordance with the specific treatment for each plot. The recommended spacing for planting is 60cm between rows and 40cm between individual plants. There were six plants in each plot. To document observations, specific plants within each entry were selected and labelled. Various intercultural practices, including irrigation, pruning, and top dressing, were carried out on the transplanted seedlings to promote their growth. Pruning was performed multiple times to remove undesired branches, leaves, flowers, and fruits, thereby improving growth and yield throughout the experiment. Since there was no issue with insect or disease infestation other than leaf curl virus, neither fungicides nor insecticides were used. Design, arrangement, and fertilization of experiments The study was structured using a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with four replications. The block was partitioned into six plots, and six treatments were randomly assigned to each plot. There were 24 unit plots in the experiment. Each plot is 1 meter by 1 meter. The separation between the two blocks and the two plots was maintained at 0.5 meters and 0.25 meters, respectively. According to the BARC fertilizer recommendation guide [ 16 ], cow dung (10 t/ha), Urea (250 kg/ha), TSP (240 kg/ha), and Mop (220 kg/ha) were applied. All of the cow dung, TSP, and half of the Urea and MoP were applied during the final land preparation. After 30 days of transplanting, the remaining half of MoP and Urea were fully merged with the soil. The experiment consisted of six treatments: T 0 = Control/No fertilizer, T 1 = recommended dose of chemical fertilizer (RDF), T 2 = (75% RDF) + Azotobacter, T 3 = (75% RDF) + Phosphorus Solubilizing bacteria (PSB), T 4 = (75% RDF) + PSB + Azotobacter, T 5 = (75% RDF) + PSB + Azotobacter + Trichoderma. The biofertilizers used in this study, namely PSB and Azotobacter, were obtained from the Soil Microbiology department of BARI, Gazipur, Dhaka. Premium-quality Trichoderma was sourced from Tongi, Dhaka, and developed by RASH. Peat soil was used as the carrier for these microbial fertilizers. The application rate for all biofertilizers in this study was 1.5 kg/ha, following the standard technique established by BARI [ 17 ]. Determination soil nutrient analysis Soil samples were collected from different parts of the study area and oven-dried. The processed samples were then sent to the Soil Resource Development Institute (SRDI) for analysis of nitrogen (%), phosphorus (%), potassium (%), sulphur, zinc, boron, electrical conductivity, and bicarbonate using the modified slide method described by Jones [ 18 ]. Data collection and statistical analysis Data were collected based on soil nutrients, growth and yield attributing characteristics such as N, P, K, S, Zn, B, EC, and HCO₃⁻ plant height at different days, number of branches per plant, number of leaves per plant, leaf length, number of flower per plant, number of flower cluster per plant, number of fruit per clusters, number of fruits per plant, Individual fruit weight, fruit length, fruit width, yield per plant, yield per plot, yield ton per hectare, and yield increased over control. Data from different parameters were analyzed using STATISTIX-10 and R to assess the significance of changes in tomato growth and production resulting from different biofertilizer application types. The average values were calculated for each treatment. The comparison between treatments was evaluated using the Least Significant Difference (LSD) test at the 0.05% significance level. The following formula was used to compute the increased yield percentage compared to the control [ 19 ]: $$\:\varvec{I}\varvec{n}\varvec{c}\varvec{r}\varvec{e}\varvec{a}\varvec{s}\varvec{e}\varvec{d}\:\varvec{y}\varvec{i}\varvec{e}\varvec{l}\varvec{d}\:\left(\varvec{\%}\right)=\varvec{Y}\varvec{i}\varvec{e}\varvec{l}\varvec{d}\:\varvec{w}\varvec{i}\varvec{t}\varvec{h}\:\varvec{t}\varvec{r}\varvec{e}\varvec{a}\varvec{t}\varvec{m}\varvec{e}\varvec{n}\varvec{t}\:-\:\varvec{Y}\varvec{i}\varvec{e}\varvec{l}\varvec{d}\:\varvec{o}\varvec{f}\:\varvec{c}\varvec{o}\varvec{n}\varvec{t}\varvec{r}\varvec{o}\varvec{l}\:/\:\varvec{Y}\varvec{i}\varvec{e}\varvec{l}\varvec{d}\:\varvec{o}\varvec{f}\:\varvec{c}\varvec{o}\varvec{n}\varvec{t}\varvec{r}\varvec{o}\varvec{l}\:\times\:\:100$$ 3. Results Base line soil status of the studied field The initial soil nutrient status was analyzed by the Soil Resource Development Institute (SRDI), Bangladesh. The average nutrient contents of the studied soil were N (0.23%), P (0.38%), K (0.27%), S (115 ppm), Zn (89 ppm), B (4 ppm), EC (92.31 µS cm⁻¹), and HCO₃⁻ (372.61 µS cm⁻¹) (Table 1 ).The application of bio fertilizers improved soil health, resulting in increased growth, yield, and quality of tomatoes. Table 1 Baseline soil nutrient composition before application of different treatments Nutrients Amount Nitrogen (%) 0.23 Phosphorus (%) 0.38 Potassium (%) 0.27 Sulphur (ppm) 115 Zinc (ppm) 89 Boron (ppm) 4 EC (µS/cm) 92.31 HCO3 (µS/cm) 372.61 Impact of biofertilizers on the vegetative growth of tomato Biofertilizer's impact on tomato vegetative growth. Observations of plant height (cm) were made at the time of the most recent harvest, as well as 30, 45, 60, and 90 days after transplanting. Plant height increased steadily from transplanting to harvesting. The relatively highest plant height recorded from T 5 , 46 cm, 65.67 cm, 75 cm and 84.67 cm at 30, 45, 60 and 90 DAT consecutively ( Fig. 1 and Suppl. Table 1 ). On the other hand comparatively lowest plant height were recorded from control T 0 , 32.33 cm, 48.67 cm, 60.67 cm, and 66.67 cm at at 30, 45, 60 and 90 DAT consecutively. This result suggests that the biofertilizer significantly influences soil health and tomato plant height. This study also indicates that the biofertilizer has diverse effects on the number of leaves, leaf length, and branches per plant. The relatively highest number of leaves per plant was recorded from T 5 , 33.63, 43.12, 49.62, and 54.00, at 30, 45, 60, and 90 DAT consecutively ( Table 2 ) . The relatively highest leaf length was recorded from T 5 , 6.06 cm, 7.00 cm, and 8.00 cm, at 45, 60, and 90 DAT consecutively. The relatively highest number of branches was recorded from T 5 , 3.43, 4.50, and 5.56 at 45, 60, and 90 DAT consecutively. However, the control (T 0 ) displayed the highest number of leaves, leaf length, and branches per plant, suggesting that the control is unable to provide a higher yield because of an unbalanced nutrient source that promotes aberrant vegetative growth. Table 2 Impact of different biofertilizer treatments on growth characteristics of tomato Treatment Number of leaf/Plant Leaf length (cm) Number of branch/Plant 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT T 0 28.31b 37.62b 47.75b 50.93ab 5.90ab 6.78ab 6.46b 1.93b 2.93b 3.87b T 1 29.31ab 37.31b 44.93b 50.5b 5.84ab 6.75ab 7.65a 2.50b 3.68ab 4.68ab T 2 29.06b 37.87b 46.37ab 52.06ab 6.06a 5.43b 7.87a 7.65a 3.62ab 4.68ab T 3 29.25b 37.81b 45.43b 50.56ab 5.68ab 6.65ab 7.59a 2.12b 3.37b 4.75ab T 4 31.94b 38.75b 45.75ab 52.18ab 5.68ab 6.62ab 7.78a 1.81b 2.93b 3.93b T 5 33.63a 43.12a 49.62a 54a 6.06a 7.00a 8.00a 3.43a 4.50a 5.56a LSD(0.05) 4.11 3.19 3.33 3.45 0.48 0.44 0.44 0.91 0.87 1.00 CV% 19.36 11.72 10.19 9.50 11.85 9.5 8.14 56.26 35.49 31.13 T 0 = Control, T 1 = recommended dose of chemical fertilizer (RDF), T 2 = (75% RDF) + Azotobacter, T 3 = (75% RDF) + Phosphorus Solubilizing bacteria (PSB), T 4 = (75% RDF) + PSB + Azotobacter, T 5 = (75% RDF) + PSB + Azotobacter + Trichoderma, DAT- Days after transplanting; LSD = Least significant difference; CV = Coefficient of variation; Letters a, b, and c represent statistically significant differences among treatments and same letters did not show any difference. Impact of biofertilizers on the yield and yield attributes of tomato The control (T 0 ) produced the fewest flowers, 13.56 per plant, while T 5 produced the most, 16.62 per plant, across all treatments. Noticeable variations were observed in the number of flowers per cluster/treatment. T 5 , the number of flower clusters per plant was the highest, 4.93, whereas for T 3 , the number of flower clusters per plant was the lowest (3.81). The highest number of fruits per cluster was 4.68 from T 5 , while the lowest was 3.56 from T 3 . Based on the comparative result of T 5 , which consisted of Azotobactor, PSB, Trichoderma, and RDF, a comparatively larger number of fruits per plant (25.75), in comparison to the control T0, which had fruits per plant (21.00). T 5 exhibited the highest weight of individual fruit (54.43 g), maximum yield per plant (1.35 kg), total yield per plot (8.13 kg), and yield per hectare (81.31 tons). In contrast, the control treatment (T 0 ) exhibited the lowest individual fruit weight (29.50 g), yield per plant (0.62 kg), yield per plot (3.73 kg), and yield per hectare (37.33 tons), as documented in Table 3 . Compared to the control, yield increases of 52.10%, 45.48%, 53.79%, 104.61% and 117.81% were observed in treatments T 1 , T 2 , T 3 , T 4 , and T 5 , respectively. Table 3 Impact of different biofertilizer treatments on yield and yield attributes characteristics of tomato Treatment Flower number/ plant Flower cluster/ plant Number of fruits per cluster Fruit number/ plant Individual Fruit weight (gm) Fruit yield (kg/ plant) Yield/ plot (kg) Yield (ton/ha) Yield increased over control (%) T 0 13.56d 4.37bc 4.12abc 21.00a 29.50c 0.62c 3.73c 37.33c 0 T 1 14.87bcd 4.68ab 4.43ab 23.94a 41.38b 0.95abc 5.68abc 56.78abc 52.10 T 2 14.06cd 4.00cd 3.68c 22.50a 40.05b 0.91bc 5.43bc 54.31bc 45.48 T 3 15.75ab 3.81d 3.56c 24.81a 42.01b 0.96abc 5.74abc 57.41abc 53.79 T 4 15.12abc 4.25bcd 4.00bc 24.27a 52.28a 1.27ab 7.64ab 76.38ab 104.61 T 5 16.62a 4.93a 4.68a 24.75a 54.43a 1.35a 8.13a 81.31a 117.81 LSD (0.05) 1.55 0.45 0.63 NS 10.02 0.43 2.56 15.61 CV % 14.71 15.05 22.06 9.06 8.17 14.91 14.91 14.91 T 0 = Control, T 1 = recommended dose of chemical fertilizer (RDF), T 2 = (75% RDF) + Azotobacter, T 3 = (75% RDF) + Phosphorus Solubilizing bacteria (PSB), T 4 = (75% RDF) + PSB + Azotobacter, T 5 = (75% RDF) + PSB + Azotobacter + Trichoderma, DAT- Days after transplanting; LSD = Least significant difference; CV = Coefficient of variation; Letters a, b, and c represent statistically significant differences among treatments and same letters did not show any difference. Impact of biofertilizers on the fruit characteristics of tomato The largest individual fruit length of 32.95cm was observed in T 5 , which is statistically identical from T 4 and T 2 treatments. Conversely, the smallest individual fruit length of 30.69cm was found in T 0 (control).These findings suggested that chemical and biological fertilizers have a positive impact on tomato fruit length. Upon examining the data on the average fruit diameter, it was found that the combined use of chemical and biofertilizer was significantly better than the control.Individual fruit measured from T 5 had the highest diameter (32.23 cm), which is statistically different from other treatments, and the lowest diameter (26.20 cm) from the control (Table 4 ). Impact of biofertilizers on the plants fresh weight and dry weight of tomato The maximum fresh and dry weight of the plant (156.50 and 119gm, respectively) was recorded from T 5 , followed by T 4 , T 3 , and so on may be due to biological system and proper utilization of fertilizer by these treatments(Table 4 ). The lowest fresh and dry mass of the plant (144.13 and 93.19gm, respectively) were recorded from T 0 , which was also statistically similar with other treatments.It different fertilizer doses influence on plant physiological activity also. Table 4 Impact of different biofertilizer treatments on fruit and physiological characteristics of tomato Treatment Fruit Length (cm) Fruit Diameter (cm) Plant Fresh Weight (gm) Plant Dry Weight (gm) T 0 30.69bc 26.20c 144.13c 93.19b T 1 31.16bc 28.80b 152.44ab 94.81b T 2 32.62a 28.91b 150.25bc 94.13b T 3 29.93c 29.03b 150.56ab 94.50b T 4 31.88ab 26.28c 152.31ab 95.38b T 5 32.95a 32.23a 156.50a 119.00a LSD(0.05) 1.50 1.50 6.19 21.74 CV% 0.02 3.49 5.83 31.41 T 0 = Control, T 1 = recommended dose of chemical fertilizer (RDF), T 2 = (75% RDF) + Azotobacter, T 3 = (75% RDF) + Phosphorus Solubilizing bacteria (PSB), T 4 = (75% RDF) + PSB + Azotobacter, T 5 = (75% RDF) + PSB + Azotobacter + Trichoderma, DAT- Days after transplanting; LSD = Least significant difference; CV = Coefficient of variation; Letters a, b, and c represent statistically significant differences among treatments and same letters did not show any difference. Different trait association analysis The correlation heatmap (Fig. 2 ) provides correlations between different vegetative, reproductive, and yield components of tomato. Yield characters including FYP, YP, YTH and YIC showed highly significant positive correlation with one another (r = 0.80–0.91; p < 0.01–0.001). Similarly IFW and NL at 30 DAT (NI. 30), exhibited substantial positive correlations with yield traits (r = 0.82–0.94). Moderately positive correlations of NI were showed between FL, FD. 90 and r = 0.57–0.76). In contrast, branch number at different growth stages (Bn. 45–90) exhibited weak or no significant relationship with yield. Negative correlation between leaf length at 45 DAT and at 60 DAT (r = − 0.88; p < 0.001) was very marked, implying inverse type of growth pattern. There were moderate correlations between PFW and PDW, on the one hand, and vegetative parameters (leaf number and length), on the other hand, but weak with yield. The clustered heatmap effectively visualizes patterns in the standardized data, revealing inherent groupings of treatments and features that exhibit similar behavior (Fig. 3 ). The dendrograms accompanying both the rows and columns clearly illustrate the hierarchical clustering structure. For instance, specific treatment groups cluster together, reflecting comparable responses across the set of measured features. By analyzing the color intensity (Z-scores) in the heatmap, we can precisely identify which features show high expression (indicated by red/positive Z-scores) or low expression (indicated by blue/negative Z-scores) relative to the mean for particular treatments. A striking example is Treatment T 5 , which displays uniformly high Z-scores across most features, suggesting a strong positive overall response compared to the average. Conversely, T 0 often exhibits negative Z-scores for several features. This detailed visualization permits a nuanced interpretation of how each treatment modulates the various measured parameters. The use of the diverging colormap ('vlag') is particularly effective in highlighting these positive and negative deviations from the mean. The Scree Plot clearly indicates that the initial principal components account for a substantial proportion of the total variance in the data (Fig. 4 ). Specifically, PC 1 explains approximately 58.35% and PC 2 accounts for about 17.05%, resulting in a cumulative variance explanation of about 75.40%. This strong concentration of variance in the first two components suggests that an effective reduction in data dimensionality is possible while preserving the majority of the critical information. The projection of the samples (treatments) onto the plane defined by PC 1 and PC 2 shows discernible separation among the treatment groups. Notably, Treatment T 5 is distinct and located significantly far to the right along PC 1 . Treatment T 0 is also somewhat separated on the left side of the plot. Treatments T 1 , T 2 , T 3 , and T 4 , however, are clustered more closely together, indicating a higher degree of similarity in their effects on the measured features. This observed separation implies that the treatments exert distinct influences on the variables under investigation. 4. Discussion Crop productivity and soil health were significantly improved by the use of biofertilizers, including Trichoderma, Azotobacter, and Phosphate-Solubilizing Bacteria (PSB). When PSB, Azotobacter, and Trichoderma were used together, they significantly increased soil microbial activity, nutrient availability, and root development, thereby improving tomato plant growth and yield. By preserving soil fertility and lowering reliance on chemical fertilizers, these biofertilizers support sustainable agricultural production. Stronger vegetative growth and increased fruit output result from improved soil structure and biological activity induced by biofertilizer treatments. According to these synergistic effects, biofertilizers can be extremely important for improving soil health and tomato and other vegetable crop yield [ 20 , 21 ]. There were notable differences in the crop's morphological, yield, and physiological characteristics across the various biofertilizer treatments; however, some of these differences were statistically insignificant. However, the total yield was significantly higher with biofertilizer application, especially in tomatoes [ 22 , 23 ]. This supports earlier research showing increased vegetable crop productivity due to improved soil microbial activity and nutrient availability. Plant height results were likewise consistent, with tomato plants treated with biofertilizers reaching an average height of 71.3 cm, whereas the control group reached a minimum height of 65.4 cm. Similar differences among the treatments were observed in additional morphological characteristics, confirming the findings [ 24 , 25 ].The capacity of phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms (PSMs) to hydrolyze insoluble phosphorus compounds may increase floral development in the biofertilizer treatment by increasing phosphorus availability[ 26 ]. According to Meena et al. [ 27 ],phosphobacteria enhanced soil phosphate availability, thereby promoting root growth and nutrient uptake. This led to larger cells and enhanced cell division, which in turn increased the number of flowers [ 28 ]. In a similar study, the results indicated that applying nutrient sources increased flowering. The observed increase in the present study may be attributed to the synergistic effect of chemical fertilizer, Azotobacter, PSB, and Trichoderma, which significantly enhanced the number of flower clusters per treatment compared to the control [ 15 ]. Similarly, Meena et al. [ 27 ] observed a similar outcome in tomatoes regarding the number of flower clusters. Similar results to the current study have been observed in the tomato case. An analysis of the total yield showed substantial differences across treatments, with both input factors (I; water and nitrogen fertilizer) and treatment factors (T; Azotobacter and Trichoderma) affecting yield. The combined microbial inoculation of Azotobacter and Trichoderma (A + T) enhanced tomato yield and fruit number per plant by 48.6% and 50%, respectively, under ideal water and nutrient conditions. Previous research showing that biofertilizers improve crop quality and yield lends additional credence to these findings [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]. Previous research across various crop systems provides additional support for the use of biofertilizers[ 32 , 33 ]. By directly and favorably influencing nitrogen assimilation, biofertilizers can improve nutrient absorption and enhance the use of other fertilizers [ 34 ]. In a prior study, a combination of PSB, Trichoderma, and chemical fertilizers produced the maximum yield. Trichoderma harzianum, a helpful soil-inhabiting fungus, was added as part of Treatment T5, which produced a protective layer around the roots that successfully stops the emergence of harmful diseases[ 35 , 36 ]. It has been demonstrated that this protective impact helps to boost agricultural productivity [ 37 ]. Application of biofertilizer has been shown to increase tomato yield by 10–40% in several different studies [ 38 , 6 ]. These discoveries align with Meena et al. (2010)'s findings on tomato fruit breadth and length, as well as with Gajbhiye et al. [ 39 ]and other studies on the buildup of fresh and dry biomass [ 40 ]. According to the current study, applying biofertilizer specifically, PSB, Azotobacter, and Trichoderma significantly improves tomato growth, fruit development, and yield. The synergistic effects of these microbial inoculants improve nutrient availability, root protection, and plant physiological parameters, thereby promoting sustainable crop production. These findings support integrating biofertilizers into tomato and other vegetable cropping systems to increase productivity while maintaining soil health. 5. Conclusion The results of the current study reveal that the combined application of biofertilizers (Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria, Azotobacter, and Trichoderma) along with 75% RDF appreciably improved vegetative growth, fruit yield, and the physiological behavior of tomato plants, as well as soil health. The highest fruit yield (81.31 ton per hectare) was recorded under treatment T 5 (75% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + Trichoderma), which increased by 117.81% over the control, along with significant enhancement in fruit size, plant biomass, and components of yield. Pearson's correlations demonstrated a positive and significant association among yield components, including fruit yield per plant, individual fruit weight, and number of leaves, thereby strengthening their direct effects on productivity. The cluster heatmap clearly separated T 5 from other treatments, indicating high and consistent performance across all measured traits. The PCA confirmed these results, with the first two PCs explaining 75.4% of the total variance, and allowed differentiation of the T 5 treatment as the most discriminatory mixture in terms of impact on yield increase. It can be concluded that the combination of biofertilizer with reduced synthetic fertilizer input is an effective strategy for enhancing tomato yield and soil fertility. This warrants further research to validate these findings across agroecological regions, seasons, and tomato genotypes, and to examine the long-term effects of a selected microbial consortium on soil microbial ecology and nutrient cycling. Declarations Ethics approval and Consent to participate All experimental research and field studies involving plant material were conducted in strict accordance with relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation. The BARI tomato-15 seeds used in this study were purchased from the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), located in Gazipur, Bangladesh. The plant material used in this study does not involve any protected species, and no specific permits, permissions, or licenses were required for the collection of the plant material. The collection was carried out following the established local and national guidelines, ensuring compliance with all applicable regulations. Consent to publish Not applicable. Clinical trial number Not applicable. Conflict of interest The authors declare no potential conflict of interest regarding the publication of this work. Funding The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article. Author Contribution Conceptualization; S.S., Methodology; J.A.K., A.A.K, Investigation; S.S., A.A.K., Validation and formal analysis; S.S., J.A.K., Data Curation; M.N.H.A., M.N.M., M.S.A., Writing-original draft preparation; J.A.K., M.N.H.A., M.N.M., M.S.A., D.G.G., and C.I.G.G. Writing-review and editing; A.A.K., S.S., Supervision; S.S. Acknowledgement All of the authors would like to take this opportunity to show their appreciation to the International University of Business, Agriculture, and Technology (IUBAT) in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and more specifically to the College of Agricultural Sciences for support in carrying out the research. Data Availability The datasets of this article are available from the corresponding author on a reasonable request. References Ahmed S, Khan M, Raza T, Ahmad R, Iqbal J, Eash NS. Integrated use of bio-organic and chemical fertilizer to enhance yield and nutrients content of tomato. Eurasian J Soil Sci. 2022;11(2):126–32. https://doi.org/10.18393/ejss.1022529 . Anandaraj B, Delapierre LRA. Studies on the influence of bioinoculants (Pseudomonas fluorescens, Rhizobium sp., Bacillus megaterium) in green gram. J Biosci Technol. 2010;1:95–9. Anuradha, Singh J. (2021). Organic farming by biofertilizers. In Biofertilizers: Study and Impact (pp. 121–149). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119724995.ch4 Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). Statistical Year Book. Statistics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh; 2010. p. 149. Cirillo V, Romano I, Woo SL, Di Stasio E, Lombardi N, Comite E, Maggio A. Inoculation with a microbial consortium increases soil microbial diversity and improves agronomic traits of tomato under water and nitrogen deficiency. Front Plant Sci. 2023;14:1304627. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1304627 . Coulibaly PJA, Sawadogo J, Bambara YAI, Ouedraogo WBM, Legma JB, Compaore E. (2021). Effect of bio-fertilizers on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) production and on soil physico-chemical properties in Sudan area of Burkina Faso. Current Agriculture Research Journal , 9(1), 43–53.http://197.159.135.214/jspui/handle/123456789/355. FAOSTAT. (2016). Situation de la production de tomates au Burkina Faso . Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/faostat/fr/#data/QC FRG, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC). (2012). Recommendation Guide . Farmgate, Dhaka-1215. Retrieved from Gajbhiye RP, Sharma RR, Tewari RN. Effect of biofertilizer on the growth and yield parameters of tomato. Indian J Hort. 2003;60(4):368–71. Gonçalves J, Freitas J, Fernandes I, Silva P. Microalgae as biofertilizers: A sustainable way to improve soil fertility and plant growth. Sustainability. 2023;15(16):12413. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612413 . Haque MM, Ilias GNM, Molla AH. Impact of Trichoderma-enriched biofertilizer on the growth and yield of tomato (Solanum lycopersicon Mill). Agriculturists. 2012;10(2):109–19. https://doi.org/10.3329/agric.v10i2.13148 . Hemalatha M, Selvi D, Vasanth D. Integrated plant nutrients supply and foliar nutrition on fruit yield, nutrient uptake, and availability in okra (Abelmoschusesculentus L.) Hybrid COBhH-4 in an alfisol of Tamirabarani Command Area. Int J Adv Agricultural Sci Technol. 2018;5(8):47–66. https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.2018.000196 . Hossain MM, Islam MT, Sarkar MN, Rahman MM, Faisal AHMA, Ahmed QM. Combined impact of chemical and bio-fertilizers on soybean in the coastal area of Bangladesh. J Bioscience Agric Res. 2023;30(01):2527–32. https://doi.org/10.18801/jbar.300123.305 . Jones J. Soil analysis handbook of reference methods. CRC; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203739433 . Kalayu G. Phosphate solubilizing microorganisms: A promising approach as biofertilizers. International J Agronomy 2019 Article ID. 2019;4917256:7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4917256 . Kamal S, Kumar K, Rajkumar, &, Raghav M. Effect of biofertilizer on growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersiconesculentum Mill). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7(2):2542–5. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.702.309 . Kawalekar JS. Role of biofertilizers and biopesticides for sustainable agriculture. J Bio Innov. 2013;2:73–8. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20133310135 . Khan H, Akbar WA, Shah Z, Rahim HU, Taj A, Alatalo JM. Coupling phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB) with inorganic phosphorus fertilizer improves mungbean (Vignaradiata) phosphorus acquisition, nitrogen fixation, and yield in alkaline-calcareous soil. Heliyon. 2022;8(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09081 . Kumar DA, Sivakumar K, Mariyappan E. Comparative studies on the growth and yield of brinjal (Solanum melongena L.) var PLR2 based on bioinoculants and inorganic fertilizer. Int J Res Sci Innov. 2018;5(3):191–3. Meena ML, Ram RB, Yogita S. (2010). Effect of biofertilizers on growth, yield and horticultural traits in tomato cv. Azad T-6. Progress Agric (Special Issue), 209–11. Nosheen S, Ajmal I, Song Y. Microbes as biofertilizers: A potential approach for sustainable crop production. Sustainability. 2021;13:1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041868 . Obaid EF, Manea AI, Mohammed TJ. Effect of biofertilizers and organic fertilization on the growth and yield of cherry tomato plant. Int J Environ Sci. 2025;11(4s):557–65. https://theaspd.com/index.php/ijes/article/view/601/439 . Ogugua UV, Ogbuewu IP, Mbajiorgu CA, Adriaanse P. Meta-analysis of biofertilizer effects of Bacillus species on tomato yield. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-12711-2 . Okon Y, Itzisohn R. The development of Azospirillum as a commercial inoculant for improving crop yields. Biotechnol Adv. 1995;13:414–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0734-9750(95)02004-M . Prusty S, Sahoo RK, Sharaya R, Tuteja N, Gill SS. Unraveling the potential of native Azotobacter and Azospirillum spp. formulations for sustainable crop production of rice (Oryza sativa L. var. Khandagiri). South Afr J Bot. 2023;162:10–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2023.08.060 . Quintarelli V, Borgatti D, Baretta M, Stazi SR, Allevato E, Pancaldi S, Hassine B, M. Microbial biofertilizers and algae-based biostimulant affect fruit yield characteristics of organic processing tomato. J Sci Food Agric. 2025;105(1):530–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.13851 . Sawadogo J, Ouédraogo WBM, Coulibaly PJA, Savadogo CA, Kaboré A, Legma JB. Étude comparative de la qualité de trois amendementsorgano-biologiques sur la production de tomate à Soaladans le Centre-Ouest du Burkina Faso. Sci Tech Sci Nat Agr. 2019;38:35–50. https://revuesciences-techniquesburkina.org/index.php/sciences_naturelles_et_appliquee/article/view/697 . Sengupta SK, Dwivedi YC, Kushwah SS. Response of tomato (Lycopersiconesculentum Mill.) to bio-inoculants at different levels of nitrogen. Vegetable Sci. 2002;29(2):186–8. 10.5555/20033119100 . https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/ . Sharma R, Sindhu SS, Glick BR. Potassium solubilizing microorganisms as potential biofertilizers: A sustainable climate-resilient approach to improve soil fertility and crop production in agriculture. J Plant Growth Regul. 2024;43(8):2503–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-024-11297-9 . Sharmin, S., Arfin, M. N. H., Tareque, A. M. M. M. U., Kafi, A. A., Miah, M. S., Hossen,M. Z., … Robin, A. H. K. (2024). Reduction of potassium supply alters the production and quality traits of Ipomoea batatas cv. BAU sweetpotato-5 tubers. Stresses, 4(4), 883–895. https://doi.org/10.3390/stresses4040059. Singh TB, Ali A, Prasad M, Yadav A, Shrivastav P, Goyal D, Dantu PK. Role of organic fertilizers in improving soil fertility. Contaminants in Agriculture: Sources, Impacts and Management. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. pp. 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41552-5_3 . Some K, Nikiema J, Sawadogo I. (2019). Evaluation of tomato varieties for their adaptability to rainy season production in Centre-North and Eastern regions Burkina Faso. Burkina Faso Rainy Season Tomato Trial Rep, 1–12. Tembo Y, Mkindi AG, Mkenda PA, Mpumi N, Mwanauta R, Stevenson PC, Belmain SR. Pesticidal plant extracts improve yield and reduce insect pests on legume crops without harming beneficial arthropods. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1425. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01425 . Terry E, Pino M-d-l-A, Medina N. Application times of an Azospirillum byproduct in tomato growth, development and yield. CultivosTropicales. 2000;21(4):5–8. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=193230160001 . Tripathi MK, Shukla SK, Jaiswal VP, Sharma L, Nagargade M, Pathak AD, Ranka A. Integration of mycorrhizae, Azotobacter, and Pseudomonas spp. (PSB) with NPK and their effects on sugarcane crop and soil health in Uttar Pradesh, India. Sugar Tech. 2025;27(2):340–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-024-01513-x . Wang X, Yang Y, Gao B, Wan Y, Li YC, Xie J, Tang Y. Slow-released bio-organic–chemical fertilizer improved tomato growth: Synthesis and pot evaluations. J Soils Sediments. 2021;21(1):319–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-020-02775-0 . Wang Z, Zhang H, Liu L, Li S, Xie J, Xue X, Jiang Y. Screening of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria and their abilities of phosphorus solubilization and wheat growth promotion. BMC Microbiol. 2022;22(1):296. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-022-02715-7 . Yadav A, Pandey SN. Effect of integrated nutrient management on the growth, bio-chemical constituents, and yield of tomato (Lycopersiconesculentum Mill). J Biol Chem Res. 2015;32(2):835–41. Ye L, Zhao X, Bao E, Li J, Zou Z, Cao K. Bio-organic fertilizer with reduced rates of chemical fertilization improves soil fertility and enhances tomato yield and quality. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):177. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56954-2 . Zhang X, Zhang L, Liu J, Shen Z, Liu Z, Gu H, Wang G. Biofertilizers enhance soil fertility and crop yields through microbial community modulation. Agronomy. 2025;15(7):1572. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071572 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Supplementaryfile.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 11 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 04 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 01 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 27 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 03 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 16 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 15 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 15 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8524005","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":585034947,"identity":"a0257970-2d92-4030-9b0e-300e76889d50","order_by":0,"name":"Shaila Sharmin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"International University of Business Agriculture and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shaila","middleName":"","lastName":"Sharmin","suffix":""},{"id":585034948,"identity":"fc3f5c25-2874-440d-b59a-e5e6f6f83107","order_by":1,"name":"Abdullah Al Kafi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"International University of Business Agriculture and Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abdullah","middleName":"Al","lastName":"Kafi","suffix":""},{"id":585034949,"identity":"389a5ef0-4bd4-469b-bf66-d4216ddd36ff","order_by":2,"name":"Jamini Azad Kolmi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"International University of Business Agriculture and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jamini","middleName":"Azad","lastName":"Kolmi","suffix":""},{"id":585034950,"identity":"3916fff0-74a5-43c7-a28f-419c3da33b45","order_by":3,"name":"Md. Nazmul Hasan Arfin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"International University of Business Agriculture and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Md.","middleName":"Nazmul Hasan","lastName":"Arfin","suffix":""},{"id":585034951,"identity":"bc0232dd-7337-4232-9f74-6dea1930c3cc","order_by":4,"name":"Md. Nahid Mahmud","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"International University of Business Agriculture and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Md.","middleName":"Nahid","lastName":"Mahmud","suffix":""},{"id":585034952,"identity":"c52d1846-4779-455d-ad3a-6489080bdf71","order_by":5,"name":"Md. Shoeab Akhter","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"International University of Business Agriculture and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Md.","middleName":"Shoeab","lastName":"Akhter","suffix":""},{"id":585034953,"identity":"6cd7eb7b-f776-4d01-bb41-c4b0556c907d","order_by":6,"name":"Daniel Gutierrez-Gonzalez","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universidad Veracruzana","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Daniel","middleName":"","lastName":"Gutierrez-Gonzalez","suffix":""},{"id":585034954,"identity":"e6a41952-c02c-4cf5-bae1-50cd673e4d26","order_by":7,"name":"Carlos Ivan Gutierrez Gonzalez","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universidad Veracruzana","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Carlos","middleName":"Ivan Gutierrez","lastName":"Gonzalez","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-05 18:08:26","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8524005/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8524005/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":101993593,"identity":"d9936292-ed94-464e-9ac8-962c573b71c9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-05 21:17:27","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":153846,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePlant height of tomato plantsat different days\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e = Control, T\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e = recommended dose of chemical fertilizer (RDF), T\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF) + Azotobacter, T\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF) +Phosphorus Solubilizing bacteria (PSB), T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF) + PSB+Azotobacter, T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e= (75% RDF) + PSB + Azotobacter + Trichoderma; DAT- Days after transplanting.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8524005/v1/eac7af1a85ff6f3e4a8036a3.jpeg"},{"id":101993597,"identity":"0c1eec18-5f15-4dd0-be61-afb652a9f566","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-05 21:17:27","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":438362,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCorrelation heatmap of all the studied parameters of tomato\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHere,NI. 30, 45, 60, 90-Number of leaves per plant at 30, 45, 60, 90 DAT;LI. 45, 60, 90-Leaf length 45, 60, 90 DAT; Bn. 45, 60, 90- Brunches number 45, 60, 90 DAT;FLNP-Flower number per plant; FCP-Flower cluster per plant; NFC-Number of fruits per cluster; FRNP-Fruit number per plant; IFW-Individual fruit weight; FYP-Fruit yield per plant; FP-Yield per plot; YTH-Yield per hectare; YIC-Yield increased over control (%); FL-Fruit Length; FD-Fruit diameter; PFW-Plant fresh weight; PDW-Plant dry weight.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8524005/v1/db67263bed1218c9b0153c34.png"},{"id":102295326,"identity":"1fb70faa-2ebf-45a5-b0bd-8dc20f003aa8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-10 10:10:56","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":120902,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCluster heatmapof all the studied parameters of tomato\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHere, NI. 30, 45, 60, 90-Number of leaves per plant at 30, 45, 60, 90 DAT; LI. 45, 60, 90-Leaf length 45, 60, 90 DAT; Bn. 45, 60, 90- Brunches number 45, 60, 90 DAT;FLNP-Flower number per plant; FCP-Flower cluster per plant; NFC-Number of fruits per cluster; FRNP-Fruit number per plant; IFW-Individual fruit weight; FYP-Fruit yield per plant; FP-Yield per plot; YTH-Yield per hectare; YIC-Yield increased over control (%); FL-Fruit Length; FD-Fruit diameter; PFW-Plant fresh weight; PDW-Plant dry weight.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8524005/v1/228be426856abd1813400271.jpeg"},{"id":102295126,"identity":"cf690627-46ec-4499-82c6-5ff491672dff","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-10 10:09:02","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":58159,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePrincipal Component of all the studied parameter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHere, NI. 30, 45, 60, 90-Number of leaves per plant at 30, 45, 60, 90 DAT; LI. 45, 60, 90-Leaf length 45, 60, 90 DAT; Bn. 45, 60, 90- Brunches number 45, 60, 90 DAT;FLNP-Flower number per plant; FCP-Flower cluster per plant; NFC-Number of fruits per cluster; FRNP-Fruit number per plant; IFW-Individual fruit weight; FYP-Fruit yield per plant; FP-Yield per plot; YTH-Yield per hectare; YIC-Yield increased over control (%); FL-Fruit Length; FD-Fruit diameter; PFW-Plant fresh weight; PDW-Plant dry weight.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8524005/v1/d3bae8db6858a2e988951abb.jpeg"},{"id":102397527,"identity":"7327ff18-2763-460a-91af-1650ecdab809","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-11 10:17:44","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1832678,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8524005/v1/88553b71-fc5b-4bdf-81f2-1948a109f7ff.pdf"},{"id":101993594,"identity":"21956b2e-1889-41bc-a0a0-10ec131246ee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-05 21:17:27","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":13591,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementaryfile.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8524005/v1/71791f45c7f30a17b06745fb.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Effect of Different Biofertilizer Applications on Soil Health, Tomato Growth, and Yield","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eTomato is\u0026ensp;a member of the Solanaceae family, \u003cem\u003eLycopersiconesculentum\u003c/em\u003e. This plant is native to tropical America, especially Peru, Ecuador\u0026ensp;and Bolivia in the Andes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. According to Haque et al.[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e], which is a significant and largely cultivated vegetable\u0026ensp;voicing off in winter as well as summer season in Bangladesh with an average output of 8.72 metric tons per hectare, Bangladesh produced 103 metric tons of tomatoes from a total area of 18,16,000 hectares in 2010 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. The yield is significantly lower than in other countries that cultivate tomatoes. The utilization of low-yielding cultivars, the increasing incidence of pests, the increased use of chemical fertilizers, and the significant postharvest losses of 20\u0026ndash;60% are all responsible for the low crop output [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. There is a growing need to equip farmers with strategies for integrated soil fertility management (ISFM), which supplements chemical fertilizers with organic and biofertilizers to conserve soil health and promote crop productivity. Tomato (\u003cem\u003eSolanum lycopersicum\u003c/em\u003e L.) is a horticultural crop with one of the highest yields and is among the most important economic vegetable crops, grown both within and outside greenhouses worldwide in terms of both socio-economic value and nutritional significance. Tomatoes contain potent antioxidants, including lycopene, β-carotene, phenolic compounds, and vitamin C. These bioactives play a significant role in protecting against chronic diseases, such as certain cancers and cardiovascular diseases, and also contribute to human well-being. Though its significant contribution, tomato production has recorded a declining yield trend over the past decade, attributed to soil nutrient depletion, inappropriate fertilizer use, pest and disease pressure, and variability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. For example, global\u0026ensp;yields reduced from 11.3 t ha⁻\u0026sup1; in 2010 to 9.7 t ha⁻\u0026sup1; in 2014 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite this, the application of biofertilizers\u0026ensp;(such as phosphate-solubilising and nitrogen-fixing microorganisms) is a potentially environmentally-friendly approach to enhance nutrients bioavailability and soil fertility alongside tomato yield in diverse cropping areas [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe non-symbiotic\u0026ensp;nitrogen fixers commonly encountered in non-leguminous crops are Azotobacter and Azospirillum. The positive influences of these bacteria on plants' growth seem to be related mainly to their capacity to stimulate root development, to increase the uptake of water and minerals by roots, and to suppress fungal pathogenic species (fungi)\u0026ensp;or even bacteria. However, they also exhibit some biological N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e Fixation. Further, these bacteria synthesize plant growth-promoting compounds (PGPCs), such as indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) and gibberellins, which ultimately promote plant growth. They also contribute to soil health by decreasing soil compaction and increasing soil microbial biodiversity. They are attracting more attention for their\u0026ensp;application in agriculture by replacing chemical fertilizers and to form an eco-friendly farming system [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB) are\u0026ensp;one of the important soil microorganisms which make phosphorus available to plant, thus contribute for sustainable agriculture. These bacteria could be utilized\u0026ensp;to convert insoluble inorganic phosphorus into available form for plants. Apart from the genetic adaptation of plants to phosphorus nutrition, the most important is certainly also that by root sorbed\u0026ensp;microbes it can be solubilized phosphate compounds. The main mechanism system to this process is the release of low-molecular-weight organic acids, which can be cation-chelating and pH-lowering in the solid environment in supporting phosphate solubilization [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. In addition\u0026ensp;to phosphate solubilization, PSB also promotes root growth, nutrient intake and crop growth in plants treated under low-nutrient circumstances. They aid in soil fertility through activation of microbial activity\u0026ensp;and enzyme synthesis, enhancing nutrient dynamics. It is\u0026ensp;an eco-friendly substitute for chemical phosphorus fertilizer that can decrease not only human input but also environmental pollution. Furthermore, incorporating pH into crop production systems promotes sustainable soil management and enhances long-term agricultural productivity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].Biofertilizers are organic products derived from living cells that help increase soil fertility and crop productivity.MR\u0026ensp;based on the beneficial microorganisms bio-component developed, such as bacteria, fungi, and blue-green algae. These microbes, such as nitrogen-fixing and phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria, help to make\u0026ensp;soil nutrients more available, making plants healthier. It ensures the activity of oligoazotrophic bacteria composing the strain (which amounts to 100 ml or less), as this level is higher than in any organic fertilizers now, since each gram of biofertilizer contains no less than 10\u0026nbsp;million living cells of a specific strain. This efficiency can lead to reduced chemical use in an operation consistent\u0026ensp;with sustainable agriculture. The biofertilizers play a significant role in maintaining soil health as well as\u0026ensp;reducing dependency on chemically synthesized fertilizers, sustaining the long-term fertility of soils and their environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. In agricultural fields, biofertilizers are also an important input for the reduction in the use of chemicals for soil fertility requirements as they exploit micro symbionts symbiotic activities\u0026ensp;in crops. Mineral fertilizers offer instant nutrition, resulting\u0026ensp;in organic matter reduction and soil acidification as well as repeated cropping. Biofertilizer for restoring soil health increasing accumulation\u0026ensp;of organic matter and stabilisation of pH. This integrated system approach reduces the adverse effects of\u0026ensp;synthetic fertilisers on the environment and improves sustainable soil productivity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. It is essential to adopt integrated soil fertility management in this specific situation, as with all other crops, which includes the use of both bio-fertilizers and inorganic fertilizers. In Bangladesh, there are currently a few organizations that specialize in the non-commercial production of enhanced biofertilizers. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of Trichoderma, phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB), and Azotobacterbiofertilizers on tomato growth, yield performance, and soil health improvement for sustainable crop production.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eExperimental site and soil characteristics\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExperimental fieldwork was conducted at the IUBAT Agricultural Research Station in Bason, Gazipur, Dhaka, Bangladesh, from January to April of 2021 to assess the effects of biofertilizer on tomato growth and yield under varied treatment conditions. The soil is classified within the agroecological zone Modhupur Tract (AEZ 28). The trial site was 8.45 meters above sea level and located at 27 degrees North, 40 degrees East[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. The soil's texture is sandy loam. When the chemical qualities of the soil in the research region were first examined, the following findings were obtained according to Kumar et al.[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e],: pH 6.6, organic matter 1.2%, nitrogen (N) 0.10%, potassium (K) 0.19 (meq/100gm), phosphorus (P) 10.2 (\u0026micro;g/g), sulphur (S) 13.7 (\u0026micro;g/g), calcium (Ca) 4.28 (\u0026micro;g/g), magnesium (Mg) 1.60 (meq/100g), zinc (Zn) 1.98 (\u0026micro;g/g), and boron (B) 0.35 (\u0026micro;g/g).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTest crop and intercultural operations\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBARI Tomato 15 was the variety of plant used in this study. The seeds were sown in December 2020. The 30-day-old seedlings were transplanted into the main field after land preparation and the first fertilization, in accordance with the specific treatment for each plot. The recommended spacing for planting is 60cm between rows and 40cm between individual plants. There were six plants in each plot. To document observations, specific plants within each entry were selected and labelled. Various intercultural practices, including irrigation, pruning, and top dressing, were carried out on the transplanted seedlings to promote their growth. Pruning was performed multiple times to remove undesired branches, leaves, flowers, and fruits, thereby improving growth and yield throughout the experiment. Since there was no issue with insect or disease infestation other than leaf curl virus, neither fungicides nor insecticides were used.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDesign, arrangement, and fertilization of experiments\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study was structured using a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with four replications. The block was partitioned into six plots, and six treatments were randomly assigned to each plot. There were 24 unit plots in the experiment. Each plot is 1 meter by 1 meter. The separation between the two blocks and the two plots was maintained at 0.5 meters and 0.25 meters, respectively. According to the BARC fertilizer recommendation guide [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e], cow dung (10 t/ha), Urea (250 kg/ha), TSP (240 kg/ha), and Mop (220 kg/ha) were applied. All of the cow dung, TSP, and half of the Urea and MoP were applied during the final land preparation. After 30 days of transplanting, the remaining half of MoP and Urea were fully merged with the soil. The experiment consisted of six treatments: T\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Control/No fertilizer, T\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;recommended dose of chemical fertilizer (RDF), T\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Azotobacter, T\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Phosphorus Solubilizing bacteria (PSB), T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PSB\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Azotobacter, T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e= (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PSB\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Azotobacter\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Trichoderma. The biofertilizers used in this study, namely PSB and Azotobacter, were obtained from the Soil Microbiology department of BARI, Gazipur, Dhaka. Premium-quality Trichoderma was sourced from Tongi, Dhaka, and developed by RASH. Peat soil was used as the carrier for these microbial fertilizers. The application rate for all biofertilizers in this study was 1.5 kg/ha, following the standard technique established by BARI [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDetermination soil nutrient analysis\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoil samples were collected from different parts of the study area and oven-dried. The processed samples were then sent to the Soil Resource Development Institute (SRDI) for analysis of nitrogen (%), phosphorus (%), potassium (%), sulphur, zinc, boron, electrical conductivity, and bicarbonate using the modified slide method described by Jones [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eData collection and statistical analysis\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected based on soil nutrients, growth and yield attributing characteristics such as N, P, K, S, Zn, B, EC, and HCO₃⁻ plant height at different days, number of branches per plant, number of leaves per plant, leaf length, number of flower per plant, number of flower cluster per plant, number of fruit per clusters, number of fruits per plant, Individual fruit weight, fruit length, fruit width, yield per plant, yield per plot, yield ton per hectare, and yield increased over control. Data from different parameters were analyzed using STATISTIX-10 and R to assess the significance of changes in tomato growth and production resulting from different biofertilizer application types. The average values were calculated for each treatment. The comparison between treatments was evaluated using the Least Significant Difference (LSD) test at the 0.05% significance level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe following formula was used to compute the increased yield percentage compared to the control [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]:\u003cdiv id=\"Equa\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equa\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:\\varvec{I}\\varvec{n}\\varvec{c}\\varvec{r}\\varvec{e}\\varvec{a}\\varvec{s}\\varvec{e}\\varvec{d}\\:\\varvec{y}\\varvec{i}\\varvec{e}\\varvec{l}\\varvec{d}\\:\\left(\\varvec{\\%}\\right)=\\varvec{Y}\\varvec{i}\\varvec{e}\\varvec{l}\\varvec{d}\\:\\varvec{w}\\varvec{i}\\varvec{t}\\varvec{h}\\:\\varvec{t}\\varvec{r}\\varvec{e}\\varvec{a}\\varvec{t}\\varvec{m}\\varvec{e}\\varvec{n}\\varvec{t}\\:-\\:\\varvec{Y}\\varvec{i}\\varvec{e}\\varvec{l}\\varvec{d}\\:\\varvec{o}\\varvec{f}\\:\\varvec{c}\\varvec{o}\\varvec{n}\\varvec{t}\\varvec{r}\\varvec{o}\\varvec{l}\\:/\\:\\varvec{Y}\\varvec{i}\\varvec{e}\\varvec{l}\\varvec{d}\\:\\varvec{o}\\varvec{f}\\:\\varvec{c}\\varvec{o}\\varvec{n}\\varvec{t}\\varvec{r}\\varvec{o}\\varvec{l}\\:\\times\\:\\:100$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBase line soil status of the studied field\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe initial soil nutrient status was analyzed by the Soil Resource Development Institute (SRDI), Bangladesh. The average nutrient contents of the studied soil were N (0.23%), P (0.38%), K (0.27%), S (115 ppm), Zn (89 ppm), B (4 ppm), EC (92.31 \u0026micro;S cm⁻\u0026sup1;), and HCO₃⁻ (372.61 \u0026micro;S cm⁻\u0026sup1;) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).The application of bio fertilizers improved soil health, resulting in increased growth, yield, and quality of tomatoes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBaseline soil nutrient composition before application of different treatments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNutrients\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAmount\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNitrogen (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhosphorus (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePotassium (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSulphur (ppm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e115\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZinc (ppm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoron (ppm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEC (\u0026micro;S/cm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHCO3 (\u0026micro;S/cm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e372.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImpact of biofertilizers on the vegetative growth of tomato\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBiofertilizer\u0026apos;s impact on tomato vegetative growth. Observations of plant height (cm) were made at the time of the most recent harvest, as well as 30, 45, 60, and 90 days after transplanting. Plant height increased steadily from transplanting to harvesting. The relatively highest plant height recorded from T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e, 46 cm, 65.67 cm, 75 cm and 84.67 cm at 30, 45, 60 and 90 DAT consecutively (\u003cstrong\u003eFig.\u0026nbsp;1 and Suppl. Table\u0026nbsp;1\u003c/strong\u003e). On the other hand comparatively lowest plant height were recorded from control T\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e, 32.33 cm, 48.67 cm, 60.67 cm, and 66.67 cm at at 30, 45, 60 and 90 DAT consecutively. This result suggests that the biofertilizer significantly influences soil health and tomato plant height.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study also indicates that the biofertilizer has diverse effects on the number of leaves, leaf length, and branches per plant. The relatively highest number of leaves per plant was recorded from T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e, 33.63, 43.12, 49.62, and 54.00, at 30, 45, 60, and 90 DAT consecutively\u003cstrong\u003e(\u003c/strong\u003eTable \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e. The relatively highest leaf length was recorded from T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e, 6.06 cm, 7.00 cm, and 8.00 cm, at 45, 60, and 90 DAT consecutively. The relatively highest number of branches was recorded from T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e, 3.43, 4.50, and 5.56 at 45, 60, and 90 DAT consecutively. However, the control (T\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e) displayed the highest number of leaves, leaf length, and branches per plant, suggesting that the control is unable to provide a higher yield because of an unbalanced nutrient source that promotes aberrant vegetative growth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImpact of different biofertilizer treatments on growth characteristics of tomato\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of leaf/Plant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeaf length (cm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of branch/Plant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30 DAT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45 DAT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60 DAT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90 DAT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45 DAT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60 DAT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90 DAT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45 DAT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60 DAT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90 DAT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.31b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.62b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.75b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.93ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.90ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.78ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.46b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.93b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.93b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.87b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.31ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.31b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.93b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.5b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.84ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.75ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.65a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.50b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.68ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.68ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.06b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.87b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.37ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.06ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.06a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.43b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.87a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.65a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.62ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.68ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.25b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.81b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.43b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.56ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.68ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.65ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.59a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.12b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.37b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.75ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.94b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.75b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.75ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.18ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.68ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.62ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.78a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.81b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.93b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.93b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.63a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.12a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.62a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.06a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.00a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.00a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.43a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.50a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.56a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLSD(0.05)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCV%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Control, T\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;recommended dose of chemical fertilizer (RDF), T\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Azotobacter, T\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Phosphorus Solubilizing bacteria (PSB), T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PSB\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Azotobacter, T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e= (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PSB\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Azotobacter\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Trichoderma, DAT- Days after transplanting; LSD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Least significant difference; CV\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Coefficient of variation; Letters a, b, and c represent statistically significant differences among treatments and same letters did not show any difference.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImpact of biofertilizers on the yield and yield attributes of tomato\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe control (T\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e) produced the fewest flowers, 13.56 per plant, while T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e produced the most, 16.62 per plant, across all treatments. Noticeable variations were observed in the number of flowers per cluster/treatment. T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e, the number of flower clusters per plant was the highest, 4.93, whereas for T\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e, the number of flower clusters per plant was the lowest (3.81). The highest number of fruits per cluster was 4.68 from T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e, while the lowest was 3.56 from T\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e. Based on the comparative result of T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e, which consisted of Azotobactor, PSB, Trichoderma, and RDF, a comparatively larger number of fruits per plant (25.75), in comparison to the control T0, which had fruits per plant (21.00). T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e exhibited the highest weight of individual fruit (54.43 g), maximum yield per plant (1.35 kg), total yield per plot (8.13 kg), and yield per hectare (81.31 tons). In contrast, the control treatment (T\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e) exhibited the lowest individual fruit weight (29.50 g), yield per plant (0.62 kg), yield per plot (3.73 kg), and yield per hectare (37.33 tons), as documented in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. Compared to the control, yield increases of 52.10%, 45.48%, 53.79%, 104.61% and 117.81% were observed in treatments T\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e, T\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, T\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e, T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e, and T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImpact of different biofertilizer treatments on yield and yield attributes characteristics of tomato\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlower number/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eplant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlower cluster/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eplant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of fruits per cluster\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFruit number/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eplant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndividual Fruit weight (gm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFruit yield (kg/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eplant)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYield/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eplot (kg)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYield (ton/ha)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYield increased over control (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.56d\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.37bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.12abc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.00a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.50c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.62c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.73c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.33c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.87bcd\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.68ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.43ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.94a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41.38b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.95abc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.68abc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.78abc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.06cd\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.00cd\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.68c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.50a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.05b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.91bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.43bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.31bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.75ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.81d\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.56c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.81a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.01b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.96abc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.74abc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.41abc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.12abc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.25bcd\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.00bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.27a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.28a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.27ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.64ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e76.38ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e104.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.62a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.93a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.68a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.75a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.43a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.35a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.13a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81.31a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e117.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLSD (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCV %\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Control, T\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;recommended dose of chemical fertilizer (RDF), T\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Azotobacter, T\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Phosphorus Solubilizing bacteria (PSB), T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PSB\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Azotobacter, T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e= (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PSB\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Azotobacter\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Trichoderma, DAT- Days after transplanting; LSD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Least significant difference; CV\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Coefficient of variation; Letters a, b, and c represent statistically significant differences among treatments and same letters did not show any difference.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImpact of biofertilizers on the fruit characteristics of tomato\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe largest individual fruit length of 32.95cm was observed in T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e, which is statistically identical from T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e and T\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e treatments. Conversely, the smallest individual fruit length of 30.69cm was found in T\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e (control).These findings suggested that chemical and biological fertilizers have a positive impact on tomato fruit length. Upon examining the data on the average fruit diameter, it was found that the combined use of chemical and biofertilizer was significantly better than the control.Individual fruit measured from T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e had the highest diameter (32.23 cm), which is statistically different from other treatments, and the lowest diameter (26.20 cm) from the control (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImpact of biofertilizers on the plants fresh weight and dry weight of tomato\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe maximum fresh and dry weight of the plant (156.50 and 119gm, respectively) was recorded from T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e, followed by T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e, T\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e, and so on may be due to biological system and proper utilization of fertilizer by these treatments(Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). The lowest fresh and dry mass of the plant (144.13 and 93.19gm, respectively) were recorded from T\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e, which was also statistically similar with other treatments.It different fertilizer doses influence on plant physiological activity also.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImpact of different biofertilizer treatments on fruit and physiological characteristics of tomato\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFruit Length (cm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFruit Diameter (cm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlant Fresh Weight (gm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlant Dry Weight (gm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.69bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.20c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e144.13c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93.19b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.16bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.80b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e152.44ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94.81b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.62a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.91b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e150.25bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94.13b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.93c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.03b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e150.56ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94.50b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.88ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.28c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e152.31ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95.38b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.95a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.23a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e156.50a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e119.00a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLSD(0.05)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCV%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eT\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Control, T\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;recommended dose of chemical fertilizer (RDF), T\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Azotobacter, T\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Phosphorus Solubilizing bacteria (PSB), T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PSB\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Azotobacter, T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e= (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PSB\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Azotobacter\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Trichoderma, DAT- Days after transplanting; LSD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Least significant difference; CV\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Coefficient of variation; Letters a, b, and c represent statistically significant differences among treatments and same letters did not show any difference.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDifferent trait association analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe correlation heatmap (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) provides correlations between different vegetative,\u0026ensp;reproductive, and yield components of tomato. Yield characters including FYP, YP, YTH and YIC showed\u0026ensp;highly significant positive correlation with one another (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.80\u0026ndash;0.91; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u0026ndash;0.001). Similarly IFW\u0026ensp;and NL at 30 DAT (NI. 30), exhibited\u0026ensp;substantial positive correlations with yield traits (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.82\u0026ndash;0.94). Moderately positive correlations of NI were\u0026ensp;showed between FL, FD. 90 and\u0026ensp;r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.57\u0026ndash;0.76). In\u0026ensp;contrast, branch number at different growth stages (Bn. 45\u0026ndash;90) exhibited\u0026ensp;weak or no significant relationship with yield. Negative correlation between leaf length at 45 DAT and at 60 DAT\u0026ensp;(r = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.88; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) was very marked, implying inverse type of growth pattern. There were moderate correlations between PFW and PDW, on the one\u0026ensp;hand, and vegetative parameters (leaf number and length), on the other hand, but weak with yield.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe clustered heatmap effectively visualizes patterns in the standardized data, revealing inherent groupings of treatments and features that exhibit similar behavior (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The dendrograms accompanying both the rows and columns clearly illustrate the hierarchical clustering structure. For instance, specific treatment groups cluster together, reflecting comparable responses across the set of measured features. By analyzing the color intensity (Z-scores) in the heatmap, we can precisely identify which features show high expression (indicated by red/positive Z-scores) or low expression (indicated by blue/negative Z-scores) relative to the mean for particular treatments. A striking example is Treatment T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e, which displays uniformly high Z-scores across most features, suggesting a strong positive overall response compared to the average. Conversely, T\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e often exhibits negative Z-scores for several features. This detailed visualization permits a nuanced interpretation of how each treatment modulates the various measured parameters. The use of the diverging colormap (\u0026apos;vlag\u0026apos;) is particularly effective in highlighting these positive and negative deviations from the mean.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Scree Plot clearly indicates that the initial principal components account for a substantial proportion of the total variance in the data (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, PC\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e explains approximately 58.35% and PC\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e accounts for about 17.05%, resulting in a cumulative variance explanation of about 75.40%. This strong concentration of variance in the first two components suggests that an effective reduction in data dimensionality is possible while preserving the majority of the critical information. The projection of the samples (treatments) onto the plane defined by PC\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e and PC\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e shows discernible separation among the treatment groups. Notably, Treatment T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e is distinct and located significantly far to the right along PC\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e. Treatment T\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e is also somewhat separated on the left side of the plot. Treatments T\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e, T\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, T\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e, and T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e, however, are clustered more closely together, indicating a higher degree of similarity in their effects on the measured features. This observed separation implies that the treatments exert distinct influences on the variables under investigation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eCrop productivity and soil health were significantly improved by the use of biofertilizers, including Trichoderma, Azotobacter, and Phosphate-Solubilizing Bacteria (PSB). When PSB, Azotobacter, and Trichoderma were used together, they significantly increased soil microbial activity, nutrient availability, and root development, thereby improving tomato plant growth and yield. By preserving soil fertility and lowering reliance on chemical fertilizers, these biofertilizers support sustainable agricultural production. Stronger vegetative growth and increased fruit output result from improved soil structure and biological activity induced by biofertilizer treatments. According to these synergistic effects, biofertilizers can be extremely important for improving soil health and tomato and other vegetable crop yield [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. There were notable differences in the crop's morphological, yield, and physiological characteristics across the various biofertilizer treatments; however, some of these differences were statistically insignificant. However, the total yield was significantly higher with biofertilizer application, especially in tomatoes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. This supports earlier research showing increased vegetable crop productivity due to improved soil microbial activity and nutrient availability. Plant height results were likewise consistent, with tomato plants treated with biofertilizers reaching an average height of 71.3 cm, whereas the control group reached a minimum height of 65.4 cm. Similar differences among the treatments were observed in additional morphological characteristics, confirming the findings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e].The capacity of phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms (PSMs) to hydrolyze insoluble phosphorus compounds may increase floral development in the biofertilizer treatment by increasing phosphorus availability[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. According to Meena et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e],phosphobacteria enhanced soil phosphate availability, thereby promoting root growth and nutrient uptake. This led to larger cells and enhanced cell division, which in turn increased the number of flowers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. In a similar study, the results indicated that applying nutrient sources increased flowering. The observed increase in the present study may be attributed to the synergistic effect of chemical fertilizer, Azotobacter, PSB, and Trichoderma, which significantly enhanced the number of flower clusters per treatment compared to the control [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Similarly, Meena et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e] observed a similar outcome in tomatoes regarding the number of flower clusters. Similar results to the current study have been observed in the tomato case. An analysis of the total yield showed substantial differences across treatments, with both input factors (I; water and nitrogen fertilizer) and treatment factors (T; Azotobacter and Trichoderma) affecting yield. The combined microbial inoculation of Azotobacter and Trichoderma (A\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;T) enhanced tomato yield and fruit number per plant by 48.6% and 50%, respectively, under ideal water and nutrient conditions. Previous research showing that biofertilizers improve crop quality and yield lends additional credence to these findings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. Previous research across various crop systems provides additional support for the use of biofertilizers[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. By directly and favorably influencing nitrogen assimilation, biofertilizers can improve nutrient absorption and enhance the use of other fertilizers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. In a prior study, a combination of PSB, Trichoderma, and chemical fertilizers produced the maximum yield. Trichoderma harzianum, a helpful soil-inhabiting fungus, was added as part of Treatment T5, which produced a protective layer around the roots that successfully stops the emergence of harmful diseases[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. It has been demonstrated that this protective impact helps to boost agricultural productivity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. Application of biofertilizer has been shown to increase tomato yield by 10\u0026ndash;40% in several different studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. These discoveries align with Meena et al. (2010)'s findings on tomato fruit breadth and length, as well as with Gajbhiye et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]and other studies on the buildup of fresh and dry biomass [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. According to the current study, applying biofertilizer specifically, PSB, Azotobacter, and Trichoderma significantly improves tomato growth, fruit development, and yield. The synergistic effects of these microbial inoculants improve nutrient availability, root protection, and plant physiological parameters, thereby promoting sustainable crop production. These findings support integrating biofertilizers into tomato and other vegetable cropping systems to increase productivity while maintaining soil health.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe results of the current study reveal that the combined application of biofertilizers (Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria, Azotobacter, and Trichoderma) along with 75% RDF appreciably improved vegetative growth, fruit yield, and the physiological behavior of tomato plants, as well as soil health. The highest fruit yield (81.31 ton per hectare) was recorded under treatment T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e (75% RDF\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PSB +\u0026ensp;Azotobacter\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Trichoderma), which increased by 117.81% over the control, along with significant enhancement in fruit size, plant biomass, and components of yield. Pearson's correlations demonstrated a positive and significant association among yield components, including fruit yield per plant, individual fruit weight, and number of leaves, thereby strengthening their direct effects on productivity. The cluster heatmap clearly separated T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e from other treatments, indicating high and consistent performance across all measured traits. The PCA confirmed these results, with the first two PCs explaining 75.4% of the total variance, and allowed differentiation of the T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e treatment as the most discriminatory mixture in terms of impact on yield increase. It can be concluded that\u0026ensp;the combination of biofertilizer with reduced synthetic fertilizer input is an effective strategy for enhancing tomato yield and soil fertility. This warrants further research to validate these findings across agroecological regions, seasons, and tomato genotypes, and to examine the long-term effects of a selected microbial consortium on soil microbial ecology and nutrient cycling.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":" \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and Consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e All experimental research and field studies involving plant material were conducted in strict accordance with relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation. The BARI tomato-15 seeds used in this study were purchased from the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), located in Gazipur, Bangladesh. The plant material used in this study does not involve any protected species, and no specific permits, permissions, or licenses were required for the collection of the plant material. The collection was carried out following the established local and national guidelines, ensuring compliance with all applicable regulations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConsent to publish\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConflict of interest\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no potential conflict of interest regarding the publication of this work.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eConceptualization; S.S., Methodology; J.A.K., A.A.K, Investigation; S.S., A.A.K., Validation and formal analysis; S.S., J.A.K., Data Curation; M.N.H.A., M.N.M., M.S.A., Writing-original draft preparation; J.A.K., M.N.H.A., M.N.M., M.S.A., D.G.G., and C.I.G.G. Writing-review and editing; A.A.K., S.S., Supervision; S.S.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll of the authors would like to take this opportunity to show their appreciation to the International University of Business, Agriculture, and Technology (IUBAT) in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and more specifically to the College of Agricultural Sciences for support in carrying out the research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets of this article are available from the corresponding author on a reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhmed S, Khan M, Raza T, Ahmad R, Iqbal J, Eash NS. Integrated use of bio-organic and chemical fertilizer to enhance yield and nutrients content of tomato. Eurasian J Soil Sci. 2022;11(2):126\u0026ndash;32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18393/ejss.1022529\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18393/ejss.1022529\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnandaraj B, Delapierre LRA. Studies on the influence of bioinoculants (Pseudomonas fluorescens, Rhizobium sp., Bacillus megaterium) in green gram. J Biosci Technol. 2010;1:95\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnuradha, Singh J. (2021). Organic farming by biofertilizers. In \u003cem\u003eBiofertilizers: Study and Impact\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 121\u0026ndash;149). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/9781119724995.ch4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/9781119724995.ch4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). Statistical Year Book. Statistics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People\u0026rsquo;s Republic of Bangladesh; 2010. p. 149.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCirillo V, Romano I, Woo SL, Di Stasio E, Lombardi N, Comite E, Maggio A. Inoculation with a microbial consortium increases soil microbial diversity and improves agronomic traits of tomato under water and nitrogen deficiency. Front Plant Sci. 2023;14:1304627. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1304627\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpls.2023.1304627\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoulibaly PJA, Sawadogo J, Bambara YAI, Ouedraogo WBM, Legma JB, Compaore E. (2021). Effect of bio-fertilizers on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) production and on soil physico-chemical properties in Sudan area of Burkina Faso. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Agriculture Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 9(1), 43\u0026ndash;53.http://197.159.135.214/jspui/handle/123456789/355.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAOSTAT. (2016). \u003cem\u003eSituation de la production de tomates au Burkina Faso\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.fao.org/faostat/fr/#data/QC\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.fao.org/faostat/fr/#data/QC\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFRG, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC). (2012). \u003cem\u003eRecommendation Guide\u003c/em\u003e. Farmgate, Dhaka-1215. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.barc.gov.bd\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGajbhiye RP, Sharma RR, Tewari RN. Effect of biofertilizer on the growth and yield parameters of tomato. Indian J Hort. 2003;60(4):368\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGon\u0026ccedil;alves J, Freitas J, Fernandes I, Silva P. Microalgae as biofertilizers: A sustainable way to improve soil fertility and plant growth. Sustainability. 2023;15(16):12413. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su151612413\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su151612413\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaque MM, Ilias GNM, Molla AH. Impact of Trichoderma-enriched biofertilizer on the growth and yield of tomato (Solanum lycopersicon Mill). Agriculturists. 2012;10(2):109\u0026ndash;19. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3329/agric.v10i2.13148\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3329/agric.v10i2.13148\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHemalatha M, Selvi D, Vasanth D. Integrated plant nutrients supply and foliar nutrition on fruit yield, nutrient uptake, and availability in okra (Abelmoschusesculentus L.) Hybrid COBhH-4 in an alfisol of Tamirabarani Command Area. Int J Adv Agricultural Sci Technol. 2018;5(8):47\u0026ndash;66. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.2018.000196\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.29321/MAJ.2018.000196\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHossain MM, Islam MT, Sarkar MN, Rahman MM, Faisal AHMA, Ahmed QM. Combined impact of chemical and bio-fertilizers on soybean in the coastal area of Bangladesh. J Bioscience Agric Res. 2023;30(01):2527\u0026ndash;32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18801/jbar.300123.305\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18801/jbar.300123.305\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones J. Soil analysis handbook of reference methods. CRC; 2018. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1201/9780203739433\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1201/9780203739433\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKalayu G. Phosphate solubilizing microorganisms: A promising approach as biofertilizers. International J Agronomy 2019 Article ID. 2019;4917256:7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4917256\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1155/2019/4917256\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKamal S, Kumar K, Rajkumar, \u0026amp;, Raghav M. Effect of biofertilizer on growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersiconesculentum Mill). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7(2):2542\u0026ndash;5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.702.309\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.20546/ijcmas.2018.702.309\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKawalekar JS. Role of biofertilizers and biopesticides for sustainable agriculture. J Bio Innov. 2013;2:73\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20133310135\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20133310135\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhan H, Akbar WA, Shah Z, Rahim HU, Taj A, Alatalo JM. Coupling phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB) with inorganic phosphorus fertilizer improves mungbean (Vignaradiata) phosphorus acquisition, nitrogen fixation, and yield in alkaline-calcareous soil. Heliyon. 2022;8(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09081\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09081\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKumar DA, Sivakumar K, Mariyappan E. Comparative studies on the growth and yield of brinjal (Solanum melongena L.) var PLR2 based on bioinoculants and inorganic fertilizer. Int J Res Sci Innov. 2018;5(3):191\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeena ML, Ram RB, Yogita S. (2010). Effect of biofertilizers on growth, yield and horticultural traits in tomato cv. Azad T-6. Progress Agric (Special Issue), 209\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNosheen S, Ajmal I, Song Y. Microbes as biofertilizers: A potential approach for sustainable crop production. Sustainability. 2021;13:1\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su13041868\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su13041868\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObaid EF, Manea AI, Mohammed TJ. Effect of biofertilizers and organic fertilization on the growth and yield of cherry tomato plant. Int J Environ Sci. 2025;11(4s):557\u0026ndash;65. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://theaspd.com/index.php/ijes/article/view/601/439\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://theaspd.com/index.php/ijes/article/view/601/439\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOgugua UV, Ogbuewu IP, Mbajiorgu CA, Adriaanse P. Meta-analysis of biofertilizer effects of Bacillus species on tomato yield. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):1\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-12711-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41598-025-12711-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOkon Y, Itzisohn R. The development of Azospirillum as a commercial inoculant for improving crop yields. Biotechnol Adv. 1995;13:414\u0026ndash;42. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0734-9750(95)02004-M\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/0734-9750(95)02004-M\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrusty S, Sahoo RK, Sharaya R, Tuteja N, Gill SS. Unraveling the potential of native Azotobacter and Azospirillum spp. formulations for sustainable crop production of rice (Oryza sativa L. var. Khandagiri). South Afr J Bot. 2023;162:10\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2023.08.060\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.sajb.2023.08.060\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQuintarelli V, Borgatti D, Baretta M, Stazi SR, Allevato E, Pancaldi S, Hassine B, M. Microbial biofertilizers and algae-based biostimulant affect fruit yield characteristics of organic processing tomato. J Sci Food Agric. 2025;105(1):530\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.13851\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/jsfa.13851\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSawadogo J, Ou\u0026eacute;draogo WBM, Coulibaly PJA, Savadogo CA, Kabor\u0026eacute; A, Legma JB. \u0026Eacute;tude comparative de la qualit\u0026eacute; de trois amendementsorgano-biologiques sur la production de tomate \u0026agrave; Soaladans le Centre-Ouest du Burkina Faso. Sci Tech Sci Nat Agr. 2019;38:35\u0026ndash;50. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://revuesciences-techniquesburkina.org/index.php/sciences_naturelles_et_appliquee/article/view/697\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://revuesciences-techniquesburkina.org/index.php/sciences_naturelles_et_appliquee/article/view/697\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSengupta SK, Dwivedi YC, Kushwah SS. Response of tomato (Lycopersiconesculentum Mill.) to bio-inoculants at different levels of nitrogen. Vegetable Sci. 2002;29(2):186\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5555/20033119100\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5555/20033119100\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSharma R, Sindhu SS, Glick BR. Potassium solubilizing microorganisms as potential biofertilizers: A sustainable climate-resilient approach to improve soil fertility and crop production in agriculture. J Plant Growth Regul. 2024;43(8):2503\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-024-11297-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00344-024-11297-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSharmin, S., Arfin, M. N. H., Tareque, A. M. M. M. U., Kafi, A. A., Miah, M. S., Hossen,M. Z., \u0026hellip; Robin, A. H. K. (2024). Reduction of potassium supply alters the production and quality traits of Ipomoea batatas cv. BAU sweetpotato-5 tubers. Stresses, 4(4), 883\u0026ndash;895. https://doi.org/10.3390/stresses4040059.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSingh TB, Ali A, Prasad M, Yadav A, Shrivastav P, Goyal D, Dantu PK. Role of organic fertilizers in improving soil fertility. Contaminants in Agriculture: Sources, Impacts and Management. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. pp. 61\u0026ndash;77. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41552-5_3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-41552-5_3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSome K, Nikiema J, Sawadogo I. (2019). Evaluation of tomato varieties for their adaptability to rainy season production in Centre-North and Eastern regions Burkina Faso. Burkina Faso Rainy Season Tomato Trial Rep, 1\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTembo Y, Mkindi AG, Mkenda PA, Mpumi N, Mwanauta R, Stevenson PC, Belmain SR. Pesticidal plant extracts improve yield and reduce insect pests on legume crops without harming beneficial arthropods. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1425. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01425\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpls.2018.01425\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTerry E, Pino M-d-l-A, Medina N. Application times of an Azospirillum byproduct in tomato growth, development and yield. CultivosTropicales. 2000;21(4):5\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=193230160001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=193230160001\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTripathi MK, Shukla SK, Jaiswal VP, Sharma L, Nagargade M, Pathak AD, Ranka A. Integration of mycorrhizae, Azotobacter, and Pseudomonas spp. (PSB) with NPK and their effects on sugarcane crop and soil health in Uttar Pradesh, India. Sugar Tech. 2025;27(2):340\u0026ndash;56. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-024-01513-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12355-024-01513-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang X, Yang Y, Gao B, Wan Y, Li YC, Xie J, Tang Y. Slow-released bio-organic\u0026ndash;chemical fertilizer improved tomato growth: Synthesis and pot evaluations. J Soils Sediments. 2021;21(1):319\u0026ndash;27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-020-02775-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11368-020-02775-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang Z, Zhang H, Liu L, Li S, Xie J, Xue X, Jiang Y. Screening of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria and their abilities of phosphorus solubilization and wheat growth promotion. BMC Microbiol. 2022;22(1):296. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-022-02715-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12866-022-02715-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYadav A, Pandey SN. Effect of integrated nutrient management on the growth, bio-chemical constituents, and yield of tomato (Lycopersiconesculentum Mill). J Biol Chem Res. 2015;32(2):835\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYe L, Zhao X, Bao E, Li J, Zou Z, Cao K. Bio-organic fertilizer with reduced rates of chemical fertilization improves soil fertility and enhances tomato yield and quality. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):177. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56954-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41598-019-56954-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang X, Zhang L, Liu J, Shen Z, Liu Z, Gu H, Wang G. Biofertilizers enhance soil fertility and crop yields through microbial community modulation. Agronomy. 2025;15(7):1572. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071572\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/agronomy15071572\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-agriculture","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Agriculture](https://www.springer.com/journal/44279)","snPcode":"44279","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44279/3","title":"Discover Agriculture","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Biofertilizer, PSB, Azotobactor, Trichoderma, Tomato","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8524005/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8524005/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eBiofertilizers, including Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria (PSB), Azotobacter, and Trichoderma, play a vital role in enhancing soil fertility, nutrient uptake, and sustainable crop productivity by improving crop growth and yield. This study aimed to assess the effects of biofertilizer on the growth and yield of tomato plants and on soil health. The experiment was carried out implementing a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with four replications. The study consisted of six treatments combinations and the treatments consisted of the following groups: T\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Control, T\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;recommended dose of chemical fertilizer (RDF), T\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Azotobacter, T\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Phosphorus Solubilizing bacteria (PSB), T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e = (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PSB\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Azotobacter, T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e= (75% RDF)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PSB\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Azotobacter\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Trichoderma. The maximum growth and yield data were recorded from T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e with plant height (84.67 cm), leaves per plant (54), leaf length (8 cm), branches per plant (5.56), flowers per plant (16.62), flowers cluster per plant (4.93), fruits per cluster (4.68), number of fruits per plant (25.75), individual fruit weight (54.43 g), yield per plant (1.35 kg), yield per plot (8.13 kg), and yield per hectare (81.31 ton), yield increase over control 117.81%, most considerable individual fruit length of (32.95 cm), fruit diameter (32.23 cm), fresh weight (156.50g) and dry weight of the plant (119g). On the other hand, T\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e showed negative results in most of the studied parameters compared to other treatments. Correlation and multivariate analyses further revealed strong positive associations among yield-related traits, including fruit yield per plant, individual fruit weight, and leaf number, indicating their key contribution to overall productivity. The hierarchical cluster heatmap clearly separated T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e due to its superior response across traits, while principal component analysis (PCA) explained 75.4% of the total variance, clearly differentiating biofertilizer treatments by performance. Overall, the T\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e demonstrated superior values for these features in comparison to the other treatments. The findings suggest that integrating PSB, Azotobacter, and Trichoderma with reduced chemical fertilizers can effectively enhance tomato productivity while promoting sustainable soil health.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Effect of Different Biofertilizer Applications on Soil Health, Tomato Growth, and Yield","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-05 21:17:22","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8524005/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-03-11T07:32:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-04T14:59:42+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-01T11:56:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-27T16:28:17+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"194980496905619971815712389631445208591","date":"2026-02-22T19:34:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"228051863198800525871091644783025215889","date":"2026-02-19T02:45:21+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"276983524545622502597193281696107376041","date":"2026-02-18T15:21:52+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"183974820546621628623261298321447444781","date":"2026-02-09T02:21:45+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-03T06:54:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-01-16T07:36:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-15T09:29:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Agriculture","date":"2026-01-15T09:17:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-agriculture","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Agriculture](https://www.springer.com/journal/44279)","snPcode":"44279","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44279/3","title":"Discover Agriculture","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"fab52108-eec5-4251-be34-83eca7b1ee1d","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 5th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-11T12:07:09+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-05 21:17:22","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8524005","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8524005","identity":"rs-8524005","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}