Paper · 1995 · jpa

Liquid Rhizobial Inoculants for Lentil and Field Pea

Russell K. Hynes; Kent A. Craig; Douglas Covert; et al.

10
claims
13
verbatim quotes
45
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Traditional peat legume inoculants are viewed by western Canadian farmers as being difficult to apply. A liquid inoculant was developed and its feasibility as a carrier for Rhizobium legurninosarum bv vicieae strains 99A1 and 128C56G for lentil ( Lens culinuris Medik.) and pea ( Pisum sutivum L.), respectively, was examined. The population of the strains exceeded 33.8 × 10 6 /oz (10 8 /mL) for 9 mo when held at 41°F and stored in a warehouse with temperatures between 41 and 70 °F. One and 8 mo‐old inoculant stored as previously described nodulated their host crop. Studies using commercial scale farm equipment determined that the liquid inoculant gave a very uniform coverage of the seeds when applied through a grain auger and that the inoculated seeds flowed well when planted using various types of seeding equipment. Pea producer trials in Saskatchewan showed that the liquid inoculant was much easier to apply than the peat inoculant and that the yield of field pea was similar with either inoculant. Research plot field trials in Saskatchewan and Alberta showed that the liquid inoculant for pea and lentil resulted in yields equal to or better than those observed for the peat inoculant and that proper inoculation gave yield increases of lentil cv Laird and field pea cv Radley and Express of 546 (29%) and 303 (9%) Ib/acre, respectively over the uninoculated control. Research Question Field pea and lentil producers in western Canada inoculate their seed with Rhizobium as it is augered from storage bins to seeding equipment. Seed is treated with one of several sticking agents followed by application of the peat to the moistened seed. The objective of this study was to evaluate a liquid carrier of Rhizobium for field pea and lentil. Does the liquid formulation maintain an active and large population of Rhizobium ? Would a liquid inoculant equal the yield performance of the peat inoculant? Literature Summary Proper inoculation of legume seed can provide a large and effective population of Rhizobium . For several decades farmers have relied on peat as a carrier of rhizobia and, while it is an excellent medium for sustaining a large microbial population, it can be messy and time consuming. A typical western Canadian farm operation seeding 200 acres of field pea will have to inoculate 16 tons of seed. Therefore, it was not surprising that these producers requested a user friendly inoculant. A liquid formulation had been developed for the soybean rhizobia, Bradyrhizobium japonicum . We adapted this technology as a means of meeting the request of pea and lentil producers in western Canada. Study Description Shelf Life —This study examined the shelf life of two strains of Rhizobium leguminsarum bv viceae , 128C56G and 99A1, effective on field pea and lentil, respectively. The strains were packaged into plastic bags with capacities of 12.7 fluid oz (the traditional soybean liquid inoculant size) and 1.06 gal, proposed for the western Canadian market. The viable count of the strains of Rhizobium in the liquid formulation was determined periodically over 8 mo by removing samples, serial diluting the samples, and planting them onto a suitable growth medium. Seed Survival —Field pea and lentil seed were treated with 1 and 8 mo old liquid inoculum and seeded within 1 h of treatment or stored at 70°F and seeded at 24 and 48 h after seed treatment. Nodules per tap root were counted after growing in the greenhouse for 5 wk. Field Studies—In 1991, nine pea producers compared the ease of use and grain yield following treatment of seed with the peat or the liquid inoculum on 40 acre plots. In 1991–1992, we used replicated research plots (8.2 by 20 ft) in field pea and lentil fields to compare N 2 fixation (C 2 H 2 reduction) and grain yield following treatment with the peat or the liquid inoculum. Applied Questions Does a liquid formulation of Rhizobium maintain a shelf life sufficient for the planting season for field pea and lentil producers? Populations of both strains of Rhizobium exceeded 337.8 × 10 6 colony forming units (cfu)/oz (10 9 /mL) at the time of packaging and after 8 mo storage at 41 to 70 °F. The number of nodules that developed on field pea and lentil seed treated with 1 and 8 mo‐old inoculum was not significantly different ( P = 0.05). The liquid inoculum meets the Fertilizers Act of Canada (1988) requirement that large seed legume inoculants supply 100 000 viable, crop‐specific rhizobia per inoculated seed to ensure adequate nodulation, N2 fixation, and yield. Will the liquid inoculant perform as well as the peat inoculant? The mean yield of field pea treated with the liquid and peat inoculum from the producers trials did not differ at 2041 and 2021 lb/acre, respectively. The grain yield of field pea and lentil from the research plot also showed that the liquid inoculant performed as well as the peat inoculant (Tables and ). Inoculation of lentil and field pea with strains 99A1 and 128C56G, respectively, resulted in average yield increases of 564 (29%) and 303 (9%) lb/acre over the uninoculated treatment. Recommendation Inoculation of field pea and lentil with Rhizobium ensures that a large and effective population is available to colonize, develop root nodules, and fix N 2 for the crop. The peat‐based inoculants remain as excellent carriers of Rhizobium . However, the liquid inoculant described is user friendly and performed as well as the peat inoculant. Effect of inoculant formulation on yield of lentil inoculated with Rhizobium leguminosarum bv vicieae 99A1 in Saskatchewan research trials. Raymore Rosetown Moose Jaw Success Sovereign Treatment 1991 1992 1991 1992 1991 1991 1992 1991 Mean ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ lb/acre ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Liquid 1134 1724 1941 1960 2403 2426 906 2784 1910 Peat 1088 1921 1711 2116 2126 2297 1177 2925 1920 Uninoculated 782 848 1223 913 1991 1820 586 2788 1369 LSD ( P = 0.05) 303 667 230 452 387 318 368 NS NS Effect of inoculant formulation on yield of pea inoculated with Rhizobium leguminosarum bv vkieae 128C56G in Saskatchewan and Alberta research trials. Redwater Pigeon Lake Saskatoon Treatment 1991 1992 1991 1991 Mean ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ lb/acre ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Liquid 3908 3700 2558 3361 3382 Peat 3875 3443</jats

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 10

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Liquid inoculant maintained both rhizobial strains above the reported population after storage.

Taxon
RhizobiumRhizobiume0
Outcome
Populations of both strains of Rhizobiume0
Value
337.8 × 10 6 colony forming units (cfu)/oze0
Qualifier
after 8 mo storage at 41 to 70 °Fe0

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

Rhizobium
Rhizobium · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ninjatacoshell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Populations of both strains of Rhizobium exceeded 337.8 × 10 6 colony forming units (cfu)/oz (10 9 /mL) at the time of packaging and after 8 mo storage at 41 to 70 °F.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3992–4159 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

One and eight month old inoculant gave similar nodulation in pea and lentil.

Taxon
field pea and lentile0
Treatment
1 and 8 mo‐old inoculume0
Interactor
inoculume0symbiont
Outcome
number of nodulese0
Direction
not significantly differente0
Comparator
1 and 8 mo‐old inoculume0

Verbatim

e0

“The number of nodules that developed on field pea and lentil seed treated with 1 and 8 mo‐old inoculum was not significantly different ( P = 0.05).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4160–4307 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Liquid inoculant gave uniform seed coverage.

Taxon
field pea and lentile1
Outcome
very uniform coverage of the seedse0

Not reportedComparatorValue

Verbatim

e0

“the liquid inoculant gave a very uniform coverage of the seeds when applied through a grain auger”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 633–730 · show in text ↑
e1

“The number of nodules that developed on field pea and lentil seed treated with 1 and 8 mo‐old inoculum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4160–4262 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seeds treated with liquid inoculant flowed well through seeding equipment.

Taxon
field pea and lentile1
Outcome
inoculated seeds flowed welle0

Not reportedComparatorValue

Verbatim

e0

“the inoculated seeds flowed well when planted using various types of seeding equipment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 740–827 · show in text ↑
e1

“The number of nodules that developed on field pea and lentil seed treated with 1 and 8 mo‐old inoculum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4160–4262 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Producer trials found liquid inoculant easier to apply than peat inoculant.

Taxon
field peat0
Outcome
easier to applye0
Comparator
peat inoculante0

Verbatim

e0

“the liquid inoculant was much easier to apply than the peat inoculant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 876–945 · show in text ↑
t0

“Field Pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–52 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pea yield was similar with liquid and peat inoculants in producer trials.

Taxon
field peae0
Treatment
either inoculante0
Outcome
yield of field peae0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
either inoculante0

Verbatim

e0

“the yield of field pea was similar with either inoculant.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 955–1012 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Liquid and peat inoculants produced similar field pea yield in producer trials.

Taxon
field peae0
Treatment
liquide0
Outcome
mean yielde0
Direction
did not differe0
Value
2041 and 2021 lb/acree0
Comparator
peat inoculume0

Verbatim

e0

“The mean yield of field pea treated with the liquid and peat inoculum from the producers trials did not differ at 2041 and 2021 lb/acre, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4603–4753 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Research plot pea and lentil grain yields with liquid inoculant matched peat inoculant.

Taxon
field pea and lentile0
Treatment
liquid inoculante0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
performed as well ase0
Comparator
peat inoculante0

Verbatim

e0

“The grain yield of field pea and lentil from the research plot also showed that the liquid inoculant performed as well as the peat inoculant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4754–4894 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rhizobium inoculation raised lentil yield by 564 lb/acre, or 29%, over uninoculated treatment.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarise0
Treatment
Inoculation of lentile0
Interactor
99A1e0symbiont
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasese0
Value
564 (29%)e0
Comparator
uninoculated treatmente0

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Inoculation of lentil and field pea with strains 99A1 and 128C56G, respectively, resulted in average yield increases of 564 (29%) and 303 (9%) lb/acre over the uninoculated treatment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4910–5093 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rhizobium inoculation raised field pea yield by 303 lb/acre, or 9%, over uninoculated treatment.

Taxon
field peae0
Treatment
Inoculation of lentil and field peae0
Interactor
128C56Ge0symbiont
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasese0
Value
303 (9%) lb/acree0
Comparator
uninoculated treatmente0

Verbatim

e0

“Inoculation of lentil and field pea with strains 99A1 and 128C56G, respectively, resulted in average yield increases of 564 (29%) and 303 (9%) lb/acre over the uninoculated treatment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4910–5093 · show in text ↑

Lens culinaris · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

inoculation · symbiosis · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results differ

55 papers: 45 positive, 10 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 45 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

51 papers more in this group

See all 55 papers →

inoculation · yield · Lens culinaris (lentil)Results differ

69 papers: 65 positive, 4 negative or no effect

64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

65 papers more in this group

See all 69 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. negative

123 papers more in this group

See all 127 papers →

inoculation · symbiosis · Lens culinaris (lentil)Positive and negative results

33 papers: 30 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

29 papers more in this group

See all 33 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.