text:
|Nivedita Mishra and Krishna Sundari S*
|Plant & Microbial Technology (PMT) Group, Biotechnology Department, Jaypee Institute of Information Technology, Sector-62, NOIDA, 201307, Uttar Pradesh, India
|Corresponding Author :
|Krishna Sundari S
Plant & Microbial Technology (PMT) Group
Biotechnology Department, Jaypee Institute of Information Technology
Sector-62, Noida, 201307, Uttar Pradesh, India
Tel: 0120-2594206
Fax: 0120-2400986
E-mail: [email protected]
|Received December 02, 2014; Accepted January 16, 2015; Published January 21, 2015
|Citation: Mishra N, Sundari SK (2015) Native PGPM Consortium: A Beneficial Solution to Support Plant Growth in the Presence of Phytopathogens and Residual Organophosphate Pesticides. J Bioprocess Biotech 5:202 doi: 10.4172/2155-9821.1000202
|Copyright: © 2015 Mishra N, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Visit for more related articles at Journal of Bioprocessing & Biotechniques
Modern sustainable agricultural practices prefer to use biological agents for plant growth promotion, biocontrol and bioremediation as these are cost effective and eco-friendly. Our present study aims to investigate the effects of direct inoculation of selected consortia on plants to study its effects on supporting plant growth in the presence of root pathogen Sclerotium rolfsii and organophosphate pesticides Malathion (ML) and Methyl Parathion (MP). Candidate Plant Growth Promoting Microbial (PGPM) isolates chosen for the study are two bacterial isolates (PGPM2 a diazotrophic bacterium, PGPM9 a fluorescent Pseudomonad) and one fungal species (T103 a biocontrol fungus), originating from native agricultural fields of western U.P., India. Host plants inoculated with individual species showed a distributed growth enhancement pattern i.e., while isolate T103 improved root biomass, isolate PGPM9 enriched photosynthetic pigment content and isolate PGPM2 expanded root and shoot lengths. It appeared as though individual isolates showed a preference to enhance certain parameters over the other rather than exhibiting a uniform increment in all growth parameters. This preference to specific growth parameter over the other waned off in consortium studies where Sorghum bicolor inoculated with the consortium registered almost 2-fold increase in all parameters viz., root length, shoot length and overall biomass (root, shoot and total biomass) along with 23% rise in total chlorophyll content as compared to un-inoculated control. Selected consortia combination was able to provide better growth promotion in presence of pathogen Sclerotium rolfsii registering 58% increase in total biomass content while individual inoculation of biocontrol fungus T103 showed only 36% improvement. Selected consortia were also effective in plant growth promotion in presence of organophosphate pesticides ML and MP. More than two fold amplification was registered in all roots and shoot growth parameters studied when consortia was provided with ML and 28% increase was recorded when MP treatment was countered with consortia inoculation. All these results affirms our hypothesis that synergistic action of carefully selected PGPMs can escalate the benefits of plant growth promotion even in presence of pathogen and pesticide, hence this consortia may be a valuable option for sustained plant growth in modern agriculture systems.
|Plant growth promoting microbes (PGPM); Biocontrol; Bioremediation; Organo phosphate pesticides; Malathion; Methyl parathion
|Present agricultural practices depend upon chemical fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals for plant growth promotion and pathogen control with an intention to increase crop yield. Chemical residues left in soil after cropping are accumulative, difficult to degrade and harmful to animals, plants and human health in general and to soil health in particular. They decrease soil fertility by gradually altering its chemical composition and rendering it non-fertile. Integrated agriculture management system needs to focus on plant nutrient management for increasing productivity by providing better nutritional support as well as better control of pathogens while maintaining and improving the soil nutrient pool and removing deleterious chemicals to increase its productivity. Modern sustainable agricultural practices prefer to use biological agents for plant growth promotion and biocontrol as these are cost effective and eco-friendly.
|Many rhizosphere bacteria are known to have beneficial effects upon plant growth since long. It is scientifically proven also that inoculation of specific microorganisms in the rhizosphere and other bio-augmentation efforts leads to higher microbial diversity in the soil and play a significant role in maintaining soil health [1,2]. Scientific literature endorses positive effects of microbial inoculation on plant growth promotion and attributes this growth enhancement to various reasons like improved nutrient acquisition, improved levels of phytohormones and other growth enhancing metabolites, suppression of plant diseases etc. [3,4]. A number of such studies confirmed that these microbial bio-inoculants develop close association with host plants. An increasing number of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPRs) had been studied and a few have been developed as commercial biofertilizers for crop improvement [5-7]. Plant Growth Promoting Microbes (PGPMs) when applied as biofertilizers affect the plant growth directly via nutrient mobilization, providing growth metabolites as hormones etc. or indirectly through their anti-pathogenic activities [8]. Various microbes providing isolated benefits are well represented in literature as plant growth promoter or biocontrol agent [9-13] but still no chosen biofertilizer/biocontrol agent has been tested to provide protection against residual pesticide contamination which is common in agriculture soils. Commercial biofertilizers are mostly single species inoculants catering for isolated benefits such as providing either macronutrient (NPK) or biocontrol and acting with host specific bias which often results in non-consistent field performances.
|Recently, the emphasis has been shifted towards microbial consortia studies and its effects upon plant's growth [14-18]. These studies on consortia combination inoculation promote mixed impact picture about their growth promotional effects. Some reported significant positive impact of consortia probably due to cumulative synergistic effects of consortia inoculation over individual inoculation [15,17] while others reported no statistically significant impact of consortia over single species inoculation [19]. Some studies have even reported inconsistent and contradictory impact of consortia inoculation under greenhouse and field conditions [18].
|Biodegradation or bioremediation, a significant area of modern day biotechnology is mostly attempted for detoxification of oil spills, toxic chemical spills and industrial effluent remediation. At present presence of residual agricultural chemicals in agrarian soil is posing a big problem impacting plant, soil and human health all. Thus need of hour is availability of a system which not only provides plant growth and biocontrol benefits but also supports plant growth and development in agricultural soils contaminated with pesticide residues. Individual bacterial and fungal species showing pollutant degrading properties are long known [20-22]. Studies on bioremediation of petroleum oil, metal pollutants and organic pesticide are also widely available [23-28]. From time to time, few reports on pollutant and pesticide degradation capabilities of PGPMs have emerged [20,21,23]. Most of these earlier reports delve upon pollutant tolerance abilities of individual species studied under in vitro conditions. It would be excessive to expect that a single microbe or every PGPM should have all such qualities and substantiate for the entire spectrum of benefits i.e., plant growth promotion, biocontrol, shield plants from damage due to pollutants and also contribute to soil quality by removing such harmful chemical residues. Thus it is logical to design and device consortia studies to provide holistic and integrated benefits to the tripartite association between plant, soil and microbes. Consortia studies for their biodegradation abilities are very little explored [29]. Further the potential of such microbes having biodegradation capabilities of pollutants/pesticides has rarely been tested on plant growth promotion using direct plant inoculation methods [30].
|Studies correlating bioremediating potential along with plant growth promotion and biocontrol properties needs to be explored. Direct plant inoculation to study plant growth protection abilities of suggested consortia in organophosphate contaminated environment has not received much attention earlier. Keeping all these gaps in mind, our present work aims at developing a consortium supporting plant growth in the presence of pesticides and retention of their plant growth promoting effects even in conditions of pathogen attack and is reported in our publication for first time.
|Candidate PGPMs chosen for the study are two bacterial (PGPM2, PGPM9) and one fungal species (T103) originating from native agricultural fields of western U.P., India which have been carefully selected based on extensive in vitro lab tests as potential candidates for designing the consortium. All these potential candidates were tested for their growth promoting, biocontrol and pesticide remediation abilities in vivo on Sorghum plant. Candidate microbes selected were: one diazotrophic microbe (PGPM2) providing growth promotion without specific host bias [31], one fluorescent pseudomonad (PGPM9) with phosphate metabolizing tendencies [32] and one fungus (T103), providing biocontrol over a range of phytopathogen. This native Trichoderma isolate T103 is a-priori tested for its biocontrol abilities in vitro before exploring its ability to protect plant from pathogen attack in current in vivo experimentation [33].
|Cereal crop Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) selected for present study is a globally important crop used as food, feed, fodder and fuel. Pathogen Sclerotium rolfsii is a root pathogen reported to cause considerable economic losses worldwide. S. rolfsii causes leaf sheath blight in sorghum infecting lower stems near soil surface causing wilting and yellowing of leaves and plant death resulting in crop damages and yield losses [34,35]. ML and MP are some of the most wildly used organophosphate pesticides in Indian agriculture [36] and thus selected here to study their effects on plant growth and to check any protecting and growth promoting effects of consortia on host plant in presence of these pesticides.
|This study is a design to establish our hypothesis that cumulative synergistic action of carefully selected PGPMs may improve fertility to escalate the benefits of plant growth promotion even in presence of pathogens and help in reclamation of soil health as well. As these bio-products do not disturb chemical composition of soil they prove to be a valuable option for achieving sustainability in modern agriculture systems.
|Materials and Methods
|Fungal and bacterial isolates
|Nine bacterial and fungal cultures have been isolated from agricultural fields of NOIDA (Western U.P., India) in our lab and tested for their plant growth promoting and biocontrol tendencies in vitro [31-33]. Among them three microbes, one a Pseudomonad (termed PGPM9) that yielded the highest chlorophyll content and one diazotroph (termed PGPM2) that showed greater impact on root and shoot growth along with fungal isolate with potential for biocontrol i.e., Trichoderma spp. (T103) were chosen for consortium studies.
|Preparation of bacterial and fungal inocula
|Bacterial cultures (PGPM2 and PGPM9) were grown overnight in nutrient broth at 30°C and at 180 rpm in incubator shaker to obtain culture suspension of 108 cfu/ml. Pathogen Sclerotium rolfsii was grown on Malt Dextrose Agar (MDA) plates for seven days at 30°C. T103 was grown on MDA plates for five days at 30°C.
|To obtain fungal culture suspension, 50 ml sterile water was added to the agar plates and spores were scraped to obtain a suspension of 108 viable counts/ml. Bacterial and fungal inoculums so prepared were used for all individual treatments in further experiments. For consortia preparation, fungal suspension and bacterial suspensions were mixed in equal-volume just before treatments were applied. A total of five treatments namely, uninoculated control, single inoculations of PGPM2, PGPM9 and T103 respectively and consortia inoculation comprising all three isolates: PGPM2, PGPM9 and T103 in equal proportion were tested in all of the following experiments except in case of pesticide challenge experiments.
|Germination assay
|Seeds of Sorghum bicolor cultivar: CSH –16 procured from The Directorate of Sorghum Research (DSR) (formerly, National Research Centre for Sorghum (NRCS)), Hyderabad, India have been used in this study. The seeds were surface-sterilized with 0.1% H2O2 for 30 seconds; rinsed five times with Sterile Distilled Water (SDW) followed by similar sterilization cycle twice with 70% ethanol and soaked in SDW overnight before germination. Sterilized seeds were immersed for 30 min in respective treatment suspensions under sterilized conditions. Treated seeds were placed for germination in petri plates on sterilized cotton @ 25 seeds per plate and were inoculated in triplicate with all respective treatments. Petri dishes were watered with SDW and incubated at 30°C for three days. Number of germinated seeds was recorded per plate after three days post incubation and percentage germination calculated [37] using formula given below:
|Percentage Germination = (Number of seeds germinated/Total number of seeds placed in petri plates) × 100
|Further seedling length of all germinated seeds was recorded at same time for calculating Seed Vigor Index (SVI). Seed vigor index was calculated using following formula:
|SVI = Mean seedling length (cm) × Percentage germination
|Effect of various treatments on germination percentage and seed vigor index was analyzed by calculating percentage increase or decrease observed in specific treatment/s as compared to uninoculated control and tabulated (Tables 1and 2).
|Effect of consortia on plant growth promotion
|Seeds were prepared for germination as described earlier and soaked for 30 minutes in respective treatment suspensions. Uninoculated control seeds were soaked in SDW for same duration. Three days after germination, all post incubation parameters were recorded and germination percentage and seed vigor index was calculated.
|Such germinated seeds were placed singly in individual cells of 100 ml Root Trainers (RTs) containing peat moss and vermiculite mixture (1:2 V/V). The experiment was arranged in a randomized block design with eight replicates per treatment. RTs were watered on alternate days to meet watering requirements [38]. Two weeks after sowing, the plantlets were harvested and root length, shoot length were measured (represented in cms, Figure 1). Plantlets were dried and dry weights of roots and shoots were recorded (presented in grams, Figure 1). All the results were subjected to ANOVA and post-ANOVA analysis (p=0.01) to analyze significance of various treatments (Figure 1).
|For determining the photosynthetic pigments, 500 mg fresh weight of leaves from each of the treatments was homogenized in 80% acetone and the homogenate centrifuged at 10,000 g for 10 minutes. The optical density of the supernatant was measured spectrophotometrically at 645, 663 and 750 nm [39]. Effect of various treatments on the photosynthetic pigments, namely chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll, were estimated according to Lichtenthaler formula [40] as given below:-
|Chlorophyll a = ((13.36 × A663 − 5.19 × A645) ×8.1)/weight of plant tissue [mg/g]
|Chlorophyll b = ((27.43 × A645 − 8.12 × A663) ×8.1)/weight of plant tissue [mg/g]
|Total chlorophyll = ((5.24 × A663+ 22.24 × A645) × 8.1)/weight of plant tissue [mg/g]
|Where A645 = Absorbance at 645 nm and A663 = Absorbance at 663 nm
|Effect of various treatments was analyzed by calculating percentage increase or decrease as tabulated in Tables 1 and 2.
|Effect of consortia in presence of phytopathogen
|Phytopathogen Sclerotium rolfsii used in present studies was procured from The Central Research Institute for Dry land Agriculture (CRIDA), Hyderabad, India. To study shielding effects of consortia on plant growth against pathogen, three treatments only pathogen inoculated, pathogen inoculation with single species T103 and pathogen inoculation with consortia were compared. Germinated seeds were prepared as described earlier with 30 minute soaking in respective treatment suspensions and placed in RTs in eight replications arranged in a randomized block design. Two weeks after sowing, the plantlets were harvested and root- shoot lengths and rootshoot dry weights were measured as described earlier. ANOVA and post-ANOVA analysis (p=0.01) were carried out to compare impact of various treatments on plant growth promotion. Results represented in graphical form (Figure 2).
|Effect of consortia in presence of pesticides
|Selected pesticides under study were organophosphate Methyl Parathion (MP) and Malathion (ML) employed at 10 ppm concentration each separately. In this study a total of four treatments were tested representing: 10 ppm ML, 10 ppm MP, 10 ppm ML along with consortium inoculation and 10 ppm MP with consortium inoculation. Seeds were soaked for 30 min in respective treatments and placed for germination as described earlier. After three days, all post germination parameters were recorded and germination percentage and seed vigor index calculated and analyzed as described earlier (Table 2).
|RT experiment was placed with these germinated seeds as described earlier in eight replicates using randomized block design. Two weeks later the plantlets were harvested and all growth promoting parameters including chlorophyll pigment content were recorded and analyzed as described in earlier sections (Figure 3).
|All the experiments were conducted under constant environmental conditions in eight replicates. Data of the same treatments were pooled together for all the parameters measured and subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-ANOVA multiple analysis tests as required. The difference among treatment means was tested at 1% probability level (p=0.01).
|Results and Discussion
|The present study establishes that a consortium of PGPMs can offer cumulative synergistic efforts over single species inoculation even in presence of organophosphate pollutants and pathogen species though exhaustive studies will be needed to understand exact mechanism of this synergism.
|Effects of single specie inoculation vs. consortium on plant growth promotion
|In our present study, individual inoculation results by PGPM when compared with results from consortia inoculation experiments have proved that synergistic impact of consortia has better impact on plant growth promotion compared to distributed impact of individual inoculation. Each of the PGPM inoculation contributed to the plant growth but effects were different showing enhancement in a different growth parameter for different PGPM. The results of present study reported that T103 inoculation resulted in maximum root length (20.34 ± 1.53 cm) followed by PGPM2 (18.78 ± 1.85 cm) and PGPM9 (14.98 ± 1.4 cm) inoculation. PGPM2 showed best impact on shoot length increase (13.78 ± 1.32 cm) followed by T103, and PGPM9 (11.91 ± 0.93 cm and 11.15 ± 1.71 cm respectively) as presented in Figure 1. Growth enhancement showed by diazotrophic PGPM2 in Sorghum bicolor, is in accordance to the earlier studies by the authors [31] where this microbe has proven plant growth promoting effects on Moong (Vigna radiata), Gram (Cicer arientum) and Wheat (Triticum vulgare). Such growth promotion properties may be probably due to its ability to produce catechol type siderophore, hormone IAA and other enzymes involved in nutrient mobilization and increasing nutrient availability to host plants [31,32,41]. The fact that PGPM2 is showing no host specific bias makes it an ideal broad host range biofertilizer candidate. T103 isolate also posted significant improvement in root dry weight along with increase in shoot biomass (>50%), total chlorophyll (15%) including chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b compared to control (Table 1). Though PGPM2 showed significant increase (70%) in total biomass and root length (93%), its impact on shoot length enhancement (7%) and on chlorophyll pigmentation was non-significant compared to control (Figure 1) as evident from ANOVA analysis followed by DMRT (p=0.01). PGPM9 showed positive impact on % germination (72%) and seed vigor index (1078.2) (Table 1). PGPM2 and T 103 registered comparative efficiency in terms of % germination (60% by PGPM2 and 72% by T 103 respectively) and seed vigor index (1126.5 by PGPM2 and 1464 by T 103 respectively) while un-inoculated control could reach only 481.65 index for seed vigor (Table 1). This showed that PGPM9 inoculation has improved seed vigor 2.5 fold compared to un-inoculated control however its inoculation had most pronounced impact on chlorophyll pigmentation (2.5 fold increases in total chlorophyll and 7 fold increase chlorophyll b). PGPM9 produced IAA and also grew on nitrogen free media [33]. Hence we speculate that this suggestive role in nitrogen fixation along with IAA production and phosphate metabolizing tendencies leads to better chlorophyll development. With individual PGPM9 inoculation improvement in root length and shoot length was significant whereas overall impact on biomass was statistically not significant as evident from Table 1. PGPM9 from our collection is a fluorescent Pseudomonad with phosphate metabolizing trait. The noticeable growth promoting impact during early developmental stages of seed germination and also during late developmental stages could have been due to the significant increase in phytosynthetic pigment content (Table 1). Literature suggests essentiality of including microbes showing phosphorus supplementation trait in biofertilizers and proposes an association between phosphate utilization ability and photosynthetic efficiency. Therefore, we can speculate that phosphate metabolizing ability of T103 isolate may have contributed to the stimulation it has provided in plant growth [3,4,16,19]. Slight non-significant decrease reported in root, shoot and total biomass with PGPM9 individual inoculation is in accordance with earlier reports of Pseudomonas species on plant growth and yield of chickpea where dual-inoculation of two species had a synergistic effect and increase in plant dry biomass [15].
|To find out whether a consortia application is better than individual inoculation, comparative study was conducted including un-inoculated control, single species inoculation with either PGPM2/PGPM9/T103 respectively and consortia inoculation with all three members PGPM2, PGPM9 and T103 together. Host plants Sorghum bicolor inoculated with the consortium recorded significant improvement in root length (19.1 ± 1.77 cm) and shoot length (13.76 ± 0.7 cm) over un-inoculated control (9.73 ± 0.43 cm and 12.78 ± 1.66 cm respectively) as represented in Figure 1. Similarly, consortia inoculated plants fared well in total biomass production also (229 mg with consortia against 105 mg in un-inoculated control) as depicted in Figure 1. In fact, consortia inoculation has registered almost 2-fold increase in root length (97%) and total biomass (118%). Two fold augmentations in shoot dry weight (102%) with consortia inoculation indicated prominent positive impact on plant growth promotion however improvement in shoot length (8%) was not significant compared to un-inoculated control (Figure 1). Though both single species and consortium inoculation exhibited slight reduction in percentage germination as presented in Table 1; these differences were found to be statistically non-significant when subjected to analysis of variance at 1% probability level. This marginal reduction in percentage germination could have been a biotic stress response of microbes competing for available nutrients during initial establishment however; improvement in growth parameters supplemented with PGPMs have overcome this lag during later stages of plant growth. These studies prove that the preference of individual microbes to affect specific growth parameter over the other has faded off when applied as a consortium because, the consortium treated Sorghum bicolor were superior with respect to every growth parameter studied as compared to any of the individual inoculation effects and much prominent in growth over un-inoculated controls.
|Effect of single inoculations vs. consortia in presence of phytopathogen
|In this experiment, we compared growth effects between treatments: pathogen inoculation only, T103+pathogen and consortium+pathogen to check pathogen control tendencies of consortia over individual inoculation of T103.When studied for protection against pathogen Sclerotium rolfsii on host Sorghum bicolor, single specie inoculation with T103 showed statistically significant improvement in root length, shoot length, root dry weight and shoot dry weight over pathogen challenged plants (Figure 2). Trichoderma are well known biocontrol agents that produces some common cell wall lytic enzymes as protease, cellulase, pectinase, laccase, gelatinase and lipase along with volatiles and many other metabolites which all are involved in biocontrol [33,42-45]. The efficiency of our native T103 isolate in supporting plant growth and resisting disease could be a result of such enzyme driven metabolic reactions. When consortium inoculated host plants were challenged with pathogens, they exhibited statistically significant improvement in all parameters i.e., root length, shoot length, root dry weight and shoot dry weight as compared to single species inoculation with T 103 only as evident from Figure 2. While T103 single inoculation gave an increment of 36% in root length, 81% in root dry weight and 37% in total biomass in the presence of pathogen, inoculation with consortia provided >50% increase in root length and doubled the root biomass compared to plants inoculated with pathogen only showing significantly better cumulative effect of consortia over individual inoculation. The consortium partner T103 showing not a major influence on seed germination and photosynthetic pigment is in accordance with literature reports [46]. Effect of individual T103 inoculation on shoot length and shoot dry weight recorded 14% and 21% increase respectively. However, consortia combination showed >50% increase in shoot length, shoot dry weight and total biomass. Consortia inoculation provided 12% improvement in root length and 63% increase in shoot length and overall increase in root, shoot and total biomass was statistically significant over individual T103 inoculation when both were treated with pathogen (Figure 2).
|Results from the experiment confirm better protection ability of consortia over individual inoculation, clearly indicating a complementary mechanism occurring amongst microbes of consortia thus providing quantifiable improvements in plant performance in its presence. There are studies where two species consortia were tested and reported improved yield parameters for combined inoculation over single inoculation [3,4,15-17,47]. Benefits accrued through consortium inoculation may be due to synergistic output amongst different biocontrol mechanisms adapted by different microbial partners involved.
|Effect of consortia in presence of pesticides
|The present manuscript brings to fore retention of plant growth promotion abilities in consortium inoculated plants even in presence of organophosphate pesticide contamination. ML and MP (at a concentration of 10 ppm) were tested for their effect on plant growth. This concentration is much higher than maximal allowable concentration for ML (0.5 ppm) and for MP (4 ppm) beyond which concentrations can be lethal to growth promoting bacteria [48,49]. It was observed that pesticide inoculations reduced % germination to 44 and 48 and seed vigor index to 167.7 and 378 only with ML and MP treatments respectively compared to control data recorded as 78% germination and 481.7 seed vigor index (Tables 1 and 2). Consortia treatment recorded an improvement in seed germination by 9% and seed vigor by 43% in ML treated seeds but no significant improvement was registered with consortia treatment in presence of MP (Table 2). Consortia treatment showed improvement on all aspects on plant growth studied: percentage germination, seed vigor index, root dry weight, shoot dry weight, total biomass, root length, shoot length and chlorophyll content as compiled in Table 2. In the presence of ML, consortia inoculation showed significant improvement of 72% in all chlorophyll contents. In presence of MP, consortia inoculation exhibited 3 fold increases in chlorophyll a content while total chlorophyll content was increased by 27% only (Table 2). These differences in controlling the damaging impact of different pesticide may be due to the differential effect of pesticides on photosynthetic process and apparatus. ML and MP have different composition, structure, degradation pathways and degradation products and by products [36] which have different impact on plants thus the extent and loci of damage to chloroplast also vary. Thus we speculate that consortia having similar synergistic action in both cases have different impact on damage control which is evident from chlorophyll studies.
|Root length, shoot length and total biomass of ML treated plants were 3.81 ± 0.66 cm, 2.23 ± 0.72 cm and 20 mg (root dry weight 10 mg and shoot dry weight 10 mg) respectively as represented in Figure 3. Significant growth improvement was observed when inoculated with consortium in all measured parameters both in the presence of ML and MP as compared to uninoculated control plants (Figure 3). Statistically significant improvement in total biomass was recorded (180% with ML and 28% with MP respectively) when pesticide treatments were supplemented with consortia. Consortia treatment in presence of ML showed doubling of root dry weight and approximately five fold increase in shoot length and shoot dry weight with little impact (30% increase) on root length (Figure 3). This is probably due to better availability of nutrients and other metabolites required for plant growth augmented by synergistic interaction of microbes in consortia aiding in reducing pesticide induced stress. It is also possible that these PGPM might be utilizing pesticides as carbon/nitrogen/phosphorus sources accelerating degradation of pesticide leading to better growth to microbes and in term better growth of plants. However more experimentation is required to elucidate upon exact process/es affecting plant growth promotion and pesticide degradation in presence of consortium members.
|In the past, studies related to plant growth supporting potential of PGP microbes were majorly confined to understand either biocontrol or plant growth benefits [46,50]. None of these studies explored building a consortium with an ability to provide growth promotion, disease resistance and also mitigate negative impact of pesticide residues. Very limited studies are available about pesticide degradation by consortia [29] and even the studies where available are mostly in vitro studies where only tolerance and biodegradation potential of individual species were tested [21,51-53]. No study is available where plant inoculation of consortia was tested to study growth protection and pesticide mitigation abilities on plant. Consortia combination presented in the manuscript endowed the plant with significant growth enhancement as compared to individual inoculation indicating better impact of consortia on overall plant growth, pathogen protection and in mitigation of negative impact of presence of pesticide. The cumulative impact of consortia might be due to various hormones and other metabolites contributed by each participating member of the consortia acting in synergistic way and manifesting as overall growth improvement both in the presence of phytopathogen and residual pesticide. We thus summarize that carefully selected combination of microbes show a complementary effect on all aspects of plant development compared to individual inoculation. This is first ever plant inoculation study to prove biocontrol and bioremediating properties of a plant growth promoting consortia. A detail further research is required to fine tune combination's potential and to understand the exact mechanism/s involved however, this study clearly proves that suggested plant growth promoting consortia can be effectively developed as biocontrol and soil cleaning formulation.
|The authors acknowledge The Directorate of Sorghum Research (DSR) (formerly, National Research Centre for Sorghum (NRCS)), Hyderabad, India, for providing us Sorghum bicolor cultivar; CSH 16 seeds and The Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA, Hyderabad, India) for providing Sclerotium rolfsii culture. The authors thankfully acknowledge the support by Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Govt. of India for the research grant and Jaypee Institute of Information Technology (JIIT, NOIDA) for providing all necessary support to conduct this study.
|Table 1
|Table 2
|Figure 1
|Figure 2
|Figure 3


text:
As a PI conducting undergraduate research (often at a primarily undergraduate institution), there are many demands on your time. You cannot afford to neglect the strategic planning process. You need plan to guide decisions and time management at each phase of your career, but for early-career success a strategic planning or visioning process is enormously beneficial.
Continuing to make progress in the slow-moving world of undergraduate research can be a challenge. You are likely teaching, engaging in college or departmental service AND doing meaningful research with students. Semesters fly by faster and faster every year, and before you know it – you can forget the goals and dreams that you started your career with.
Plan to Vision
If you are an early-career faculty member, waste no time – make a strategic 3-5 year plan. Right now. No, really. Then plan to revisit, revise and update this plan regularly (every few years).
You can't know where to spend your time and energy if you haven't thoughtfully considered what is important to you.
You can't know where to spend your time and energy if you haven't thoughtfully considered what is important to you.
What to plan for?
- Mentoring: How many students are you planning to take in your lab, and how often will you add more? Does you institution have a summer research program for undergraduates? Plan to get involved, and see what kind of funding exists for supporting your salary and student salaries for the summer. Where and how will you recruit – out of your courses, your departmental majors? Will you require an application or a research contract? How will you communicate and mentor your students during the week – a group meeting? individual meetings? weekly reports?
- Publishing: What are you hoping to publish in the next few years? What research areas are you going to explore? Plan out the key experiments that are needed to frame the publication, and plan to acquire key references from the literature. Consider how established your research area is, then plan for 20-40% of your time and resources on exploratory areas of research. Areas that could develop into future projects. Who will conduct the experiments: You? Your students? Do you need a collaborator?
- Funding: Planning to write a grant proposal? What agencies support your kind of research? Are you an early-career faculty member? – then there are dedicated funding resources just for you. Look up submission deadlines and consider attending a CUR workshop on proposal writing. Is there internal support at your institution? You may need to apply for this funding, so ask your department chair.
- Networking: Plan to attend professional meetings and workshops. Do you have internal support for attending meetings at your institution? You may need to apply for this funding.
- Scheduling: Protect your time. To work your plan, you need dedicated time. Plan your teaching schedule so you have 1-2 half days or a whole day to devote to your research agenda. Close your door if there are distractions that prevent you from making progress on your plan. Agree to departmental or college service very carefully. Early-career faculty should not get sucked into large amounts of service.
Plan for Action
"Write the grant" is a goal…not an actionable item.
As you sketch out your strategic plan and goals, break down dreams and goals into actionable items. "Write the grant" is a goal…not an actionable item. Actionable items are discreet tasks for which you can envision a certain amount of time required. If the goal is "write an NSF proposal" then an actionable item could be research the funding mechanisms at NSF that fit my research area or schedule a phone call with the program officer. Breaking goals down into actionable items enables you to make measurable progress while devoting limited amounts of time.
~Dr. Keri L. Colabroy is an Associate Professor of Chemistry at Muhlenberg College. She engages undergraduates in research in the teaching lab and through independent study investigating enzymes in bacterial natural product biosynthesis.
"Using a Strategic Plan as a Tool for Early-Career Success" by Karen Nordell Pearson, which appeared in The CUR Quarterly, volume 29 (2008) pp. 29-32.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Two hours north of Munich on the A73 Autobahn, Bamberg is a college town of 70,000 and was one of the only cities in Germany not bombed during WWII. The Altstadt of Bamberg is on UNESCO's list of World Heritage sites, having successfully preserved its medieval feel. Once the summer residence of German popes, Bamberg still draws those who enjoy hiking and canoeing in the hills commonly known as 'Franconia's Switzerland'. Other attractions include the Villa Concordia, an international gathering place for artists that was established in 1998. The city also hosts a congress center, a fine beer museum (there are 10 breweries in town) and the renowned E.T.A Hoffmann Theater. Nearly 10 percent of Bamberg's population is made up of foreign service personnel, easily allowing expatriates to assimilate in this northern Bavarian town. An important city for Germany's transportation and infrastructure history, Bamberg was incorporated into the national rail line in 1844 and remains linked to Berlin, Munich and Nuremberg.
For more information please visit the official website at: www.bamberg.info


text:
Economic Analysis by Tony Alexander.
In this week's Overview I start by taking a look at reasons why not all banks have passed on all the 0.25% cut in the Reserve Bank's official cash rate. It comes down to changes in the OCR not being the best measure of changes in overall bank funding costs since the global financial crisis – something well known by the Reserve Bank and a message delivered by all of us since 2008. If the Reserve Bank wants all floating rates to drop at least 0.25% given that the credit spread for us borrowing funds offshore has increased sharply recently, all they have to do is cut the cash rate again. Simple.
I also take a three page look at the dairy sector with a graph on page 2 which visually explains why the sector went ballistic post-GFC and which allows you to generate your own "assumption" about what the payout for the next five years will average if we strip out the boom period and look at the underlying price trend from 1990 to 2007. You'll need a ruler. Instructions at the bottom of page 4 for those who have never extrapolated a trend before.
I also take a quick updated look at the Auckland housing market noting the strength seen in February's numbers, rumours of Chinese buyers returning, ever-increasing migration, and how dwelling consent numbers are running at about half the level needed to start reducing the shortage. The price implications are obvious – especially with the recent (small) cuts in mortgage rates with it seems more to come.
Probably worth a few minutes to have a read this week.
For the full analysis, continue reading below or Download document
Interest Rates and Dairying
You will have noticed that not all banks have passed on last week's 0.25% cut in the official cash rate and of those that have not all have passed it on completely. Why is this? There are two reasons. The first is that banks on average in New Zealand get about 25% – 30% of the money they lend and have already lent out to Kiwi businesses and households from foreign savers. This is because we Kiwis prefer to spend now rather than later, we save little, and as a result we live off the willingness of people overseas to continue to fund our overspending.
That willingness has declined recently amidst a wave of investor withdrawal from holding bank assets associated with worries about European bank exposure to the retrenching energy sector. We have been caught in the backwash of this wave of concern and as the 25%+ portion of money we have lent out comes up for renewal it is costing us near a 2% margin above the equivalent NZ rate as opposed to a 1% margin a year or so ago. During the depths of the GFC this credit spread as we call it was about 3% and before the GFC it was only 0.2%. Consider that change from 0.2% credit spread pre-GFC to 1% – 2% after and you will see why the old relationship between things like the official cash rate, bank bill yields, swap rates, and eventual retail lending rates has changed substantially since 2008.
Because our funding costs have been rising there have recently been increases in bank retail lending rates facing householders and businesses in Australia and New Zealand without an increase in the official cash rates. In fact the Reserve Bank specifically referred to the rising credit spreads as one of the reasons they surprised 80% of the market and cut their cash rate last week to 2.25%. They were seeking to offset the impact of rate rises already underway.
Not all banks have the same proportion of their funding derived from offshore. Some small banks with small lending books but large local depositor bases don't fund offshore at all. Thus for them funding costs have not risen as much as for those that do. They are in a position to cut their floating rates 0.25% with minimal margin impact.
The other reason for banks not all passing on all the 0.25% cash rate decrease is simple competition. Mortgages are fairly vanilla products but competition comes in more than the form of price. Distribution channels are important and some banks will be investing in such areas rather than trying to win more business from their same structure by just cutting rates.
What about the calls in some quarters for banks to be forced to pass on the rate cuts because we are not doing what some interpret as the Reserve Bank's wishes with a threat of violence to achieve that aim? No need for such dictatorial practices loved by former Prime Minister Rob Muldoon or Jake the mus. If the RBNZ truly wants floating interest rates to fall 0.25% and that is not happening then they can simply cut the cash rate again.
Prior to the 2007 crash we saw this the other way around. The Reserve Bank were trying to slow growth in the economy and reduce inflation by raising the cash rate. But fixed rates remained low so the expected impact on inflation of raising floating mortgage rates was not working. Therefore they did the only thing they could do and raised the cash rate even more. The rate eventually hit 8.25% in 2007 and helped push the NZ economy into recession before we took a hit from the GFC which doubled the length of that recession.
On another issue, media are scouring the countryside seeking dairy farmers upset at their banks during this time of stress. Memories run deep of the farming sector rout in the 1980s when farmers were hit by the combined effects of a high exchange rate, high interest rates, and removal of subsidies which had encouraged over-investment and over-production.
But the memories of those times and other periods run deep amongst bankers as well and since then practices related to handling businesses in trouble across all sectors, not just farming, have vastly changed. The monitoring by banks of client accounts and financial positions is far deeper and more frequent than ever before as most borrowers and accountants could attest, with one aim being to allow the early identification of problems and to work with the borrower to develop plans for handling issues as soon as possible. There is no desire simply to let the rot set in then force a sale of the business somewhere down the track.
Will there be forced ownership changes of dairy farms? Yes there will and there even was when the payout was $8.40. But it is often not the financier doing any forcing but rather mates, accountants, farm advisors, equity partners and family members reaching the unfortunate conclusion that the extent to which outflows exceed inflows cannot be offset through attracting new capital. Same as in every other sector. In fact the even more unfortunate realisation eventually arrives that the operation's growth in recent years should probably have been funded with capital rather than bank debt and the decision to use debt rather than get others to share the profits was not optimal. This scenario of decline through choosing to use debt rather than extra capital or choosing to self-fund growth at a slower pace is the same as in every other industry such as house building, forestry contracting, computer servicing, electronics retailing, women's clothing retailing and so on.
The dairy sector has been seen by many here and overseas to be a highly profitable one with huge growth potential based around rising demand from Asian countries. No-one probably ever seriously tried to convince anyone that their crystal ball made them certain about what prices would be in coming years, and some of us well over a decade ago proved we cannot forecast the payout. But now we have proof not a single person can predict dairy prices – and the same goes for oil, coal, iron ore and so on.
To get a feel for why the dairy sector boomed recently consider the impact on people's willingness to gear up and expand based upon what happened with prices. In the graph below we show the five year average Fonterra payout from 1990. Note the steady rise over time which accelerated after the global financial crisis assisted by rising demand from China. The latest projected payout of $3.90 is just two-thirds exactly of the five year average.
Assumptions always have to be made about what revenue from a business will be thus payouts have to be assumed and as it turns out those assumptions were too high. Why? Only partly because demand has surprised on the weak side from China since just under a year ago. Mainly it is because of the factor we have highlighted increasingly in recent years.
All of us can take a reasoned and probably reasonable view on where the demand for a commodity will go. But we seem all equally appalling at picking what will happen with supply. We have a tendency to assume few other people have seen the demand growth fundamentals we have. And when industry participants start to realise that their supply growth assumptions are proving too low, that is when a rapid price change can occur and that is what has mainly happened in the oil and dairying sector.
Three years ago most of us simply under-estimated by how much production would rise in the likes of the European Union and United States. Now the altered supply assumptions have been factored in and price expectations have been slashed. This is hitting our previously rapidly expanding dairy sector hard for a number of reasons.
First, the pace of expansion has naturally meant higher dairy farm expansion and set-up costs than would be the case if recent production system growth had been spread over a longer period of time. Debt levels have grown rapidly to fund this accelerated burst of growth. That is what debt does – it allows an acceleration in growth. But it comes at a cost of heightened exposure to shocks.
Second, related to this, farmers have been reluctant to fund their growth with capital even though all operators would know someone who in the past had to sell their farm to another farmer because they could not service their debt. Kiwi businesspeople suffer from an unwillingness to use outside capital to fund their growth because it leads to some loss of control over all decisions and sharing of the gains. There has been a preference in farming for rapid growth to be funded by debt rather than equity.
Third, any expanding agricultural sector naturally moves into less productive land so marginal production costs tend to be higher than for existing operators.
Fourth, there appears to be a problem for the dairy industry understanding the difference between marginal cost and average cost and this has led to the adoption of production-boosting supplementary feedout systems which either reduce profits or fail to boost them for 90% of operators according to a study released last year. Every extra pint of milk produced these past few years has gone into the production of low value milk powder sold in big bags to bulk buyers. No extra milk has been needed to produce more value-added products. This is a key failing of the cooperative system.
Fifth, dairy farmers want maximum payout and do not support retention of capital by their cooperative to move rapidly up the value-added chain to get to where the best dairy sector returns lie – off the farm. In fact milk suppliers have made it clear they also won't accept moving up the chain if funded by outside capital. Their growth focus is almost solely physically on the farm which surrounds them and that focus remains today the same as it has always been – maximising production. This is like a factory contracting out consultants to sell their toasters but reinvesting all earnings in producing more and more of the same toasters from more and more factories rather than investing in high priced heavily branded toasters which give nutritional advice, display updates on bread shape and colour as toasting occurs, and can untoast bread should one leave it in too long.
Land prices are falling as a result of the dairy downturn and they will keep falling for the coming year, but getting data on the extent of changes in farmland prices is notoriously difficult as no two pieces of ground are the same. But prices start from high levels and as we have highlighted for a few years now, the world is awash with money looking for a home. That money is increasingly willing to accept low yields, and that money is increasingly looking further afield and in the case of many Asian investors is seeking exposure to the agribusiness sector to benefit from rising food consumption sophistication in Asia. Thus falls in land prices are likely to be limited this time around as there are many willing buyers and that will help mitigate the pace of farm ownership changes.
In fact, while all the media attention is on farmers who have overexpanded in recent years and raised their production costs, there are plenty of old hands who have taken on board the message that debt is dangerous and constrained their growth. Some of them, now sitting on good cash reserves, will be willing purchasers of some of the farms which will come on the market. But only if the land is good. The properties which have been developed on marginal land in recent years may find very few buyers and they will suffer the greatest price declines as they revert to running sheep and beef or manuka for honey production. Golden gold, as opposed to white gold or the original black gold.
Does the dairy downturn need addressing with government legislation preventing banks from foreclosing in extremis? No, and were that to happen the long-term impact on the farming sector would be quite radical. Deprived of the backstop of protecting bank capital through having the ability to force a change in farm ownership to bring in extra capital banks would not be able to lend as much into the sector as has been the case and where lending would occur the cost would be higher to reflect the loss of that protective backstop. The farming sector would end up less indebted which would probably be a good thing, but immediate growth would cease as credit would have to be actively reduced across all dairy and non-dairy sectors to reflect the change in riskiness of farm lending.
Does the weakness in dairying justify a debt-funded infrastructure spending boom to boost economic growth as some commentators have suggested? No. The construction sector is already booming and does not have capacity to handle a swathe of new Think Big projects, and most non-dairy exporters are doing well – especially tourism operators and education providers. Plus any spending surge means more debt and as so many countries have shown us there are high dangers for governments in running high debt levels – absence of ability to insulate an economy when true big shocks come along, and diversion of revenue toward debt servicing rather than other projects. Plus, as we have been at pains to point out for so long now, while dairying may be weak other sectors are going gangbusters and it is factually incorrect to claim as some commentators are that everyone is suffering in New Zealand.
Even as it cut the cash rate last week the Reserve Bank predicted growth in each of the coming two years of over 3%. That is hardly an environment requiring a new splurge in government debt and probably dubious rushed construction projects.
Will there be dairy sector pain for many in the coming two or three years? Yes there will and that includes the non-dairying farms which have traditionally produced feed for dairy farms and are now switching to running their own stock, and companies which service and supply the sector, whether or not their payment terms are being stretched out to a three months.
But when can we expect prices to improve? Given that no-one has displayed an ability to accurately forecast prices for dairy products, oil, coal, and interest rates even there is no basis for believing any forecast of prices rising back to average levels in any given time period. Just look at Tuesday night's Global Dairy Trade auction which produced a 2.9% fall in the average indicator whereas all expectations ahead of the auction had been for a small price rise. Forget forecasting the next five years. We can't forecast ahead 12 hours.
But if you really do need a forecast then I suggest this exercise. You will need to do it yourself as I have not made a payout forecast since getting one wrong many years ago and won't restart now. Go to the graph on page 2 showing the five year average payout from 1990. Pick up a ruler and draw a trend line through the tops of the bars running from 1990 to 2007. See where that ruler hits the scale at the far right. That is what the trend suggests is a reasonable expectation for the current average payout, and if you extend the time scale a tad to the right you can generate an estimate of the average payout for the coming five years ending in 2021. (Hint, draw a vertical line down from where the text ends on the far right in the line just above the graph to get a 2021 vertical end point.) Looks only just above the current much-cited average break-even payout doesn't it?
Lets get right to the basics of the Auckland housing market.
1. There are signs that Chinese buyers are returning. If true then extra demand lies ahead, one day to be added to by buyers from India.
2. Interest rates have just been cut, further cuts lie ahead, the pool of savers needing to boost yield through assets other than bank deposits has grown again and will grow further.
3. There remains a big stack of young people wanting to buy property, some catching up on buying they have delayed since 2007.
4. Ney migration inflows are not only high and expected to stay high, they are still growing and 60% of the net flow goes to Auckland.
5. The number of dwelling consents being issued in Auckland is running at about half the number needed just to stabilise the shortage at current levels.
The Auckland housing market has been in pause mode since about October last year. We can see this in the Days to Sell measure which went from 3.5 days faster than average in September, 4.2 days in August and 5.1 days in July to only 0.9 days in October, 0.4 days slower than average in November, 0.4 days faster in December and only 0.1 days faster than average in January. I'll tell you February's outcome further along.
The stratified median dwelling sales price rose 2.6% in August and 3.3% in September, then fell 4% in October, was flat in November, then fell 2.3% in December and again in January. I will tell you February's result below.
The Auckland market has paused since October and that was when the requirement for all buyers to have an IRD number came into play along with the two year bright line test for capital gains tax. And from November 1 all investors needed at least a 30% deposit.
But now look at the February numbers. The Days to Sell measure in Auckland for February was 3.7 days faster than average. Back at September's level. The median stratified dwelling sales price jumped 5.5%.
The upshot? There are growing signs that after pausing for four months the Auckland market is sparking back into life with new assistance now from the latest easing of monetary policy and indications of more to come. Will the return of Auckland strength be at the expense of the rest of the country's surge? No. Its a nationwide phenomena now.
NZ Dollar
The Kiwi dollar was edging lower this week until the Federal Reserve adopted a more dovish than expected tone last night whilst leaving their funds rate target unchanged. We end against the USD just over 67 cents compared with just under last week. Nothing interesting to note in other words. More interesting is the NZD's continuing weakness against the Aussie dollar. The AUD was lifted a couple of weeks ago by anticipation of some further improvement in minerals prices stemming from China's stepped up efforts to boost growth focussing on infrastructure. The NZD is near where it was last Thursday against the AUD at about 89 cents. Personally speaking it feels like a good level to shift some funds back to NZ from Australia.
You will find current spot rates here. http://www.xe.com/currency/nzd-new-zealand-dollar
If I Were A Borrower What Would I Do?
The surprise move by the Reserve Bank last week to cut the OCR to 2.25% provides us with an opportunity to remind everyone of a key point we have been making with regard to interest rates for six years now. You are foolish to make your interest rate risk management decisions highly dependent upon a particular set of interest rate forecasts proving accurate. As noted here so many times before, our ability to forecast interest rates has gone out the window post-GFC because apart from correctly picking the 1% rise in the cash rate over 2014 we and everyone else have gotten essentially nothing right – since late-2007 in fact.
We cannot pick the low point in interest rates this cycle. There is in fact no identifiable cycle in place. Monetary policies globally are in uncharted territory, inflation forecasts are repeatedly too high yet the world is awash with printed money looking for a home which pre-GFC would have sparked a massive inflation surge. Post-GFC households and businesses are reluctant to boost their debt levels – dairy farmers being the exception.
Were I borrowing at the moment maybe to buy another disused bar in Auckland (see The Listener, February 29) I would have one-third floating to allow repayment flexibility and offsetting against credit funds, and the rest fixed for two years at 4.39%.
If I Were An Investor …I'd see a BNZ Private Banker
The text at this link explains why I do not include a section discussing what I would do if I were an investor. http://tonyalexander.co.nz/regular-publications/bnz-weekly-overview/if-i-were-an-investor/
For Noting
Current account deficit at just 3.1% of GDP = very low and one reason for NZD strength.
Probable Trump candidacy for Republicans in the US. Impact on NZ. No-one knows. Not even him.
Brexit? Increasingly probable. Source of weakness for both the British pound and Euro, upside for other currencies, huge uncertainties and deeper questions about the future of the European Union.
Wellington house prices – lots more upside to come. Big catch-up with Auckland.
GDP up 0.9% in the December quarter after 0.9% in the September quarter bringing calendar year growth of 2.5% forecast to rise above 3% soon. The economy is in a strong state with many sectors offsetting weakness in dairying – just as we have been saying for all the past year and will do so for all this year.
The Weekly Overview is written by Tony Alexander, Chief Economist at the Bank of New Zealand. The views expressed are my own and do not purport to represent the views of the BNZ. To receive the Weekly Overview each Thursday night please sign up at www.tonyalexander.co.nz To change your address or unsubscribe please click the link at the bottom of your email. firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
- Company:
- Live Water Properties
- Agent:
- Live Water Properties
- Phone:
- 866-734-6100
- Email:
- email@example.com
Barber Creek Ranch
Pinedale, Wyoming
Barber Creek Ranch is located in Sublette County, Wyoming, less than 5 miles from the charming Western town of Pinedale and 90 minutes from the resort community of Jackson Hole. The 968-acre property is in the foothills of the mighty Wind River Mountains and offers stunning views of snow-capped peaks. Barber Creek, a perennial stream, flows for almost 2 miles through the property from north to south. Wildlifeincluding deer, antelope, elk, moose, waterfowl and raptorsabounds. The ranch is adjacent to federal land, offering unlimited room to exploreideal for horse lovers. The property is permitted to irrigate 640 acres. The current owner irrigates 500 acres through an extensively updated irrigation system and produces 250 tons of hay in a single cutting. The ranch includes quality outbuildings for ranch equipment and livestock, as well as cattle-handling facilities. There is currently no residence, but there are numerous sites for the next owners dream home. Access is via paved highway and publicly maintained gravel roads. The offering price is $3,390,000.
- Barn
- Borders State/BLM Land
- Corrals
- Creek
- Hunting
- Hwy/County Rd Frontage
- Irrigated
- National Forest Access
- Pivot Irrigation
- Water Rights
- Work Shop


text:
When this phone releasing for the local retailer shops ?
I don't mean online eshops.
please check battery life at your end because micromax is having a bad battery life.
Is this phone support what's up ?
Can use front camera for video call ?
Anonymous, 30 Jun 2014 Wanna buy this phone,if Nokia maps is available to it.Nokia Here Maps and Here Drive+ will be available to ALL Windows Phone 8.1 devices. So yes, there will be maps here
AnonD-61557, 28 Jun 2014a new windows phone from a india OEM xolo is in market it have same spec as win 121 but in add... moreWell..both looks grt in features..but when it is time for after sales in these 2 craps.mmx & xolo..mmx wins b'coz they atlest repair and return the set* (toooooooooo many conditions applied)...but when it comes to xolo...xolo only beleives in releasing handsets on daily basis or in gap of 2-3 days...afte that its work is over... Once u purchased a xolo..njoy the phn till it works..we take at least 4 months for minor problems and for major we are not responsible so go to hell... Statutaory warning-customesrs buy xolo on their own risk..we are with u till it is working after that just throw it and buy other xolo..so that u will be always updated in sw/hw.....see..how we cares our customers...we design our phn in such manner that they could not last more than8 monts..and u will be always updated...cheers by xolo
a new windows phone from a india OEM xolo is in market it have same spec as win 121 but in addition to that it have a dragon tail glass protection+ it is world's lightest phone weighing 100gm and it is available on snapdeal for pre oder on 9999 its XOLO Q900s
Anonymous, 20 Jun 2014if companies like moto Sony n lg didn't make money out of android then why are they still maki... moreOh lagdroid fan, keep ur crap with u.
AnonD-78963, 20 Jun 2014First of all I like to say thank you Micromax ! You did great job , really I am happy ! Even ... moreNokia has better processor, exclusive apps.. So both has con and pros. Dat is depends on u, what is ur prefarence. I prefar nokia.
nitin, 24 Jun 2014Awesome phone....! Alot better than nokia's windows phone.. I have used both phones... My ch... moreWhere u use mmx wp troll, this phn is not available in market till nw. Dnt try to lie
ZRKKHAN, 26 Jun 2014Not to good....Bro it's damn gud. Just luk at the specs and then say anything about this fone.
Micromax ,pliz released this Phone before Dragon Trail glass " Q900s" arrived in the markets.


text:
Helix Energy Solutions Group
The 10-second takeaway
For the quarter ended March 31 (Q1), Helix Energy Solutions Group met expectations on revenues and beat expectations on earnings per share.
Compared to the prior-year quarter, revenue contracted significantly. Non-GAAP earnings per share dropped significantly. GAAP earnings per share dropped significantly.
Margins dropped across the board.
Revenue details
Helix Energy Solutions Group booked revenue of $197.4 million. The three analysts polled by S&P Capital IQ predicted a top line of $197.7 million on the same basis. GAAP reported sales were 52% lower than the prior-year quarter's $407.9 million.
Source: S&P Capital IQ. Quarterly periods. Dollar amounts in millions. Non-GAAP figures may vary to maintain comparability with estimates.
EPS details
EPS came in at $0.26. The seven earnings estimates compiled by S&P Capital IQ predicted $0.18 per share. Non-GAAP EPS of $0.26 for Q1 were 64% lower than the prior-year quarter's $0.72 per share. GAAP EPS of $0.02 for Q1 were 97% lower than the prior-year quarter's $0.62 per share.
Source: S&P Capital IQ. Quarterly periods. Non-GAAP figures may vary to maintain comparability with estimates.
Margin details
For the quarter, gross margin was 26.6%, much worse than the prior-year quarter. Operating margin was 7.7%, much worse than the prior-year quarter. Net margin was 0.8%, much worse than the prior-year quarter. (Margins calculated in GAAP terms.)
Looking ahead
Next quarter's average estimate for revenue is $232.0 million. On the bottom line, the average EPS estimate is $0.24.
Next year's average estimate for revenue is $955.5 million. The average EPS estimate is $1.13.
Investor sentiment
The stock has a four-star rating (out of five) at Motley Fool CAPS, with 910 members out of 948 rating the stock outperform, and 38 members rating it underperform. Among 220 CAPS All-Star picks (recommendations by the highest-ranked CAPS members), 213 give Helix Energy Solutions Group a green thumbs-up, and seven give it a red thumbs-down.
Of Wall Street recommendations tracked by S&P Capital IQ, the average opinion on Helix Energy Solutions Group is outperform, with an average price target of $27.25.
Is Helix Energy Solutions Group the right energy stock for you? Read about a handful of timely, profit-producing plays on expensive crude in "3 Stocks for $100 Oil." Click here for instant access to this free report.
- Add Helix Energy Solutions Group to My Watchlist.
Seth Jayson had no position in any company mentioned here at the time of publication. You can view his stock holdings here. He is co-advisor of Motley Fool Hidden Gems, which provides new small-cap ideas every month, backed by a real-money portfolio. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.