Paper · 2001 · Canadian Journal of Plant Science

Response of pea to rhizobia inoculation and starter nitrogen in Alberta

R. H. McKenzie; A. B. Middleton; E. D. Solberg; et al.

9
claims
13
verbatim quotes
72
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The introduction of new semileafless cultivars has contributed to the rapid expansion of pea (Pisum sativum) on the Canadian prairies. To determine the response of four new semi-leafless cultivars to rhizobia inoculation and starter fertilizer N, 58 field trials were conducted from 1995 to 1998 over a wide geographic region of Alberta. However, due to possible cross-contamination in 1995 and 1996 between inoculated and uninoculated treatments, average inoculation responses were only determined for the 22 trials conducted in 1997 and 1998. Rhizobia inoculation increased seed yield in 9 of the 22 trials by an average of 14%. The frequency of an inoculation benefit was only slightly higher (45% vs. 38%) on land with no history of legumes (n = 11) than on land that had grown a legume crop (n = 8), but the magnitude of the inoculation benefit was appreciably greater (19 vs. 5%) on land with no history of legumes. A significant interaction of inoculation with pea cultivar was observedin 6 of 22 trials: Majoret pea was the most responsive cultivar to inoculation while Baroness pea was the least responsive. Application of N fertilizer (20, 40 or 60 kg N ha –1 ) increased pea yield in 24% of the 58 trials conducted by an average of 9%. When spring soil NO 3 -N to 30cm was less than 20 kg N ha –1 , application of N fertilizer increased pea yield in 33% of the trials by an average of 11% (n = 12). The modest benefits of rhizobia inoculation or starter N fertilizer in most trials, despite appreciable deficits between spring soil NO 3 -N and accumulation of N by pea, was likely due to adequate nodulation of pea by indigenous rhizobia. Key words: Pisum sativum, nitrogen fertilizer, Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viceae, rhizobia inoculation, seed protein

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rhizobia inoculation raised pea seed yield in 9 of 22 trials by 14% on average.

Treatment
Rhizobia inoculatione0
Interactor
Rhizobiae0symbiont
Outcome
seed yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
14%e0

Not reportedComparatorSetting

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Rhizobia inoculation increased seed yield in 9 of the 22 trials by an average of 14%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 545–629 · show in text ↑
t0

“pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–15 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation benefit occurred slightly more often without a legume history than with one, 45% versus 38%.

Interactor
inoculatione0symbiont
Outcome
frequency of an inoculation benefite0
Direction
slightly highere0
Value
45% vs. 38%e0
Comparator
land that had grown a legume crope0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The frequency of an inoculation benefit was only slightly higher (45% vs. 38%) on land with no history of legumes (n = 11) than on land that had grown a legume crop (n = 8)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 631–803 · show in text ↑
t0

“pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–15 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The inoculation benefit was greater on land without a legume history, 19 versus 5%.

Outcome
magnitude of the inoculation benefite0
Direction
appreciably greatere0
Value
19 vs. 5%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the magnitude of the inoculation benefit was appreciably greater (19 vs. 5%) on land with no history of legumes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 809–920 · show in text ↑
t0

“pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–15 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation interacted significantly with pea cultivar in 6 of 22 trials.

Treatment
inoculatione0
Outcome
interaction of inoculation with pea cultivare0
Value
6 of 22 trialse0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A significant interaction of inoculation with pea cultivar was observedin 6 of 22 trials”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 922–1010 · show in text ↑
t0

“pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–15 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Majoret pea was most responsive to inoculation.

Material
Majorete0
Outcome
most responsive cultivar to inoculatione0
Direction
most responsivee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Majoret pea was the most responsive cultivar to inoculation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1012–1071 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Baroness pea was least responsive to inoculation.

Material
Baronesse0
Outcome
least responsivee0
Direction
least responsivee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Baroness pea was the least responsive”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1078–1115 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen fertilizer increased pea yield in 24% of 58 trials by 9% on average.

Treatment
N fertilizer (20, 40 or 60 kg N ha –1 )e0
Outcome
pea yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
9%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Application of N fertilizer (20, 40 or 60 kg N ha –1 ) increased pea yield in 24% of the 58 trials conducted by an average of 9%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1117–1245 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

When spring soil nitrate was below 20 kg N ha –1, nitrogen fertilizer increased pea yield in 33% of trials by 11% on average.

Treatment
N fertilizere0
Outcome
pea yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
11%e0
Qualifier
spring soil NO 3 -N to 30cm was less than 20 kg N ha –1e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“When spring soil NO 3 -N to 30cm was less than 20 kg N ha –1 , application of N fertilizer increased pea yield in 33% of the trials by an average of 11%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1247–1399 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Authors attributed modest inoculation and starter nitrogen benefits to adequate nodulation by indigenous rhizobia.

Interactor
indigenous rhizobiae0symbiont
Outcome
modest benefits of rhizobia inoculation or starter N fertilizere0
Qualifier
likely due to adequate nodulation of pea by indigenous rhizobiae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The modest benefits of rhizobia inoculation or starter N fertilizer in most trials, despite appreciable deficits between spring soil NO 3 -N and accumulation of N by pea, was likely due to adequate nodulation of pea by indigenous rhizobia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1410–1648 · show in text ↑

nitrogen · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results differ

76 papers: 59 positive, 17 negative or no effect

58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. negative

72 papers more in this group

See all 76 papers →

inoculation · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results differ

127 papers: 108 positive, 19 negative or no effect

107 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

123 papers more in this group

See all 127 papers →

fertilization · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

240 papers: 216 positive, 24 negative or no effect

215 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

236 papers more in this group

See all 240 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.