Abstract
ABSTRACT Drawbacks of intensive farming practices and environmental costs of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) fertilizers have renewed interest in biofertilizers. A study was conducted in order to investigate seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium, N2-fixing Bacillus subtilis (OSU-142) and P-solubilizing Bacillus megaterium (M-3) in comparison to control and mineral fertilizer application in controlled environment and in field conditions in 2003 and 2004 in Erzurum (29° 55′ N and 41° 16′ E with an altitude of 1950 m), Turkey. In the controlled environment and in the field trials, single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3 significantly increased all the parameters investigated (plant height, shoot, root and nodule dry weight, N%, chlorophyll content, pod number, seed yield, total biomass yield, and seed protein content) compared with the control treatment, equal to or higher than N, P, and NP treatments. In the field all the combined treatments containing Rhizobium were better for nodulation than the use of Rhizobium alone. However, nodulation by native soil Rhizobium population was increased in single and dual inoculations of OSU-142 and M-3. Significant increases of the seed yield under different inoculation treatments ranged between by 18.0% (Rhizobium) and 30.5% (Rhizobium + OSU-142 + M-3) over the control whereas N, P, and NP applications corresponded to increases of 27.0%, 11.1%, and 33.1%, respectively. In general, the increases in seed and total biomass yields were more pronounced in dual and triple inoculations. In conclusion, seed inoculation with Rhizobium, Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus megaterium, especially dual and triple combinations, may substitute costly NP fertilizers in chickpea production even in cold highland areas such as in Erzurum.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Single, dual, and triple bacterial inoculations significantly increased plant height versus control in controlled and field trials.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume1 - Treatment
- single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3e0
- Second interactor
- OSU-142e0symbiont
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
- Setting
- controlled environment and in the field trialse0
RhizobiumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the controlled environment and in the field trials, single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3 significantly increased all the parameters investigated (plant height, shoot, root and nodule dry weight, N%, chlorophyll content, pod number, seed yield, total biomass yield, and seed protein content) compared with the control treatment, equal to or higher than N, P, and NP treatments.”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
Single, dual, and triple bacterial inoculations significantly increased shoot, root and nodule dry weight versus control in controlled and field trials.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3e0
- Second interactor
- OSU-142e0symbiont
- Outcome
- shoot, root and nodule dry weighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
- Setting
- controlled environment and in the field trialse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the controlled environment and in the field trials, single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3 significantly increased all the parameters investigated (plant height, shoot, root and nodule dry weight, N%, chlorophyll content, pod number, seed yield, total biomass yield, and seed protein content) compared with the control treatment, equal to or higher than N, P, and NP treatments.”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
Single, dual, and triple bacterial inoculations significantly increased N% versus control in controlled and field trials.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3e0
- Second interactor
- OSU-142e0symbiont
- Outcome
- N%e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
- Setting
- controlled environment and in the field trialse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the controlled environment and in the field trials, single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3 significantly increased all the parameters investigated (plant height, shoot, root and nodule dry weight, N%, chlorophyll content, pod number, seed yield, total biomass yield, and seed protein content) compared with the control treatment, equal to or higher than N, P, and NP treatments.”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
Single, dual, and triple bacterial inoculations significantly increased chlorophyll content versus control in controlled and field trials.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3e0
- Second interactor
- OSU-142e0symbiont
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
- Setting
- controlled environment and in the field trialse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the controlled environment and in the field trials, single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3 significantly increased all the parameters investigated (plant height, shoot, root and nodule dry weight, N%, chlorophyll content, pod number, seed yield, total biomass yield, and seed protein content) compared with the control treatment, equal to or higher than N, P, and NP treatments.”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
Single, dual, and triple bacterial inoculations significantly increased pod number versus control in controlled and field trials.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3e0
- Second interactor
- OSU-142e0symbiont
- Outcome
- pod numbere0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
- Setting
- controlled environment and in the field trialse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the controlled environment and in the field trials, single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3 significantly increased all the parameters investigated (plant height, shoot, root and nodule dry weight, N%, chlorophyll content, pod number, seed yield, total biomass yield, and seed protein content) compared with the control treatment, equal to or higher than N, P, and NP treatments.”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
Single, dual, and triple bacterial inoculations significantly increased seed yield versus control in controlled and field trials.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3e0
- Second interactor
- OSU-142e0symbiont
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
- Setting
- controlled environment and in the field trialse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the controlled environment and in the field trials, single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3 significantly increased all the parameters investigated (plant height, shoot, root and nodule dry weight, N%, chlorophyll content, pod number, seed yield, total biomass yield, and seed protein content) compared with the control treatment, equal to or higher than N, P, and NP treatments.”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
Single, dual, and triple bacterial inoculations significantly increased total biomass yield versus control in controlled and field trials.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3e0
- Second interactor
- OSU-142e0symbiont
- Outcome
- total biomass yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
- Setting
- controlled environment and in the field trialse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the controlled environment and in the field trials, single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3 significantly increased all the parameters investigated (plant height, shoot, root and nodule dry weight, N%, chlorophyll content, pod number, seed yield, total biomass yield, and seed protein content) compared with the control treatment, equal to or higher than N, P, and NP treatments.”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
Single, dual, and triple bacterial inoculations significantly increased seed protein content versus control in controlled and field trials.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3e0
- Second interactor
- OSU-142e0symbiont
- Outcome
- seed protein contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
- Setting
- controlled environment and in the field trialse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the controlled environment and in the field trials, single, dual, and triple inoculations with Rhizobium, OSU-142, and M-3 significantly increased all the parameters investigated (plant height, shoot, root and nodule dry weight, N%, chlorophyll content, pod number, seed yield, total biomass yield, and seed protein content) compared with the control treatment, equal to or higher than N, P, and NP treatments.”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined Rhizobium treatments improved nodulation over Rhizobium alone in field trials.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- combined treatments containing Rhizobiume0
- Outcome
- nodulatione0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- Rhizobium alonee0
- Setting
- In the fielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the field all the combined treatments containing Rhizobium were better for nodulation than the use of Rhizobium alone.”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
Single and dual OSU-142 and M-3 inoculations increased nodulation by native soil Rhizobium.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- single and dual inoculations of OSU-142 and M-3e0
- Second interactor
- OSU-142e0symbiont
- Outcome
- nodulation by native soil Rhizobium populatione0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“nodulation by native soil Rhizobium population was increased in single and dual inoculations of OSU-142 and M-3”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobium increased chickpea seed yield by 18.0% over control.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- Rhizobiume0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 18.0%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant increases of the seed yield under different inoculation treatments ranged between by 18.0% (Rhizobium) and 30.5% (Rhizobium + OSU-142 + M-3) over the control whereas N, P, and NP applications corresponded to increases of 27.0%, 11.1%, and 33.1%, respectively.”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobium + OSU-142 + M-3 increased chickpea seed yield by 30.5% over control.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- Rhizobium + OSU-142 + M-3e0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 30.5%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant increases of the seed yield under different inoculation treatments ranged between by 18.0% (Rhizobium) and 30.5% (Rhizobium + OSU-142 + M-3) over the control whereas N, P, and NP applications corresponded to increases of 27.0%, 11.1%, and 33.1%, respectively.”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
N increased chickpea seed yield by 27.0% over control.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- Ne0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 27.0%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant increases of the seed yield under different inoculation treatments ranged between by 18.0% (Rhizobium) and 30.5% (Rhizobium + OSU-142 + M-3) over the control whereas N, P, and NP applications corresponded to increases of 27.0%, 11.1%, and 33.1%, respectively.”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
P increased chickpea seed yield by 11.1% over control.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- Pe0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 11.1%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant increases of the seed yield under different inoculation treatments ranged between by 18.0% (Rhizobium) and 30.5% (Rhizobium + OSU-142 + M-3) over the control whereas N, P, and NP applications corresponded to increases of 27.0%, 11.1%, and 33.1%, respectively.”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
NP increased chickpea seed yield by 33.1% over control.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- NPe0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 33.1%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant increases of the seed yield under different inoculation treatments ranged between by 18.0% (Rhizobium) and 30.5% (Rhizobium + OSU-142 + M-3) over the control whereas N, P, and NP applications corresponded to increases of 27.0%, 11.1%, and 33.1%, respectively.”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
Dual and triple inoculations produced more pronounced gains in seed and total biomass yields.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- dual and triple inoculationse0
- Outcome
- increases in seed and total biomass yieldse0
- Direction
- more pronouncede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the increases in seed and total biomass yields were more pronounced in dual and triple inoculations”
e1“seed inoculation of chickpea with Rhizobium”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest dual and triple bacterial seed inoculations as substitutes for NP fertilizer in chickpea production.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- seed inoculation with Rhizobium, Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus megateriume0
- Outcome
- may substitute costly NP fertilizerse0
- Setting
- Erzurume0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“seed inoculation with Rhizobium, Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus megaterium, especially dual and triple combinations, may substitute costly NP fertilizers in chickpea production even in cold highland areas such as in Erzurum”
The same questions in other papers
Rhizobium · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
116 papers more in this group
See all 120 papers →Rhizobium · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
44 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 papers →Rhizobium · symbiosis · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
50 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →Rhizobium · physiology: pigments · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
Rhizobium · quality: protein · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
17 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →inoculation · quality: protein · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- negative
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 papers →nitrogen · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
92 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
98 papers more in this group
See all 102 papers →inoculation · physiology: pigments · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →8 of 14 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.