Paper · 2012 · Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection

The biofertilising effect of seed dressing with PGPRBacillus amyloliquefaciensFZB 42 combined with two levels of mineral fertilising in African cotton production

Monir M. El Husseini; Helmut Bochow; Helmut Junge

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
18
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract With the help of a field experiment, the influence of PGPR FZB42 (Bacillus amyloliquefaciens) seed dressing combined with a low (39 kg N/ha) and usual (79 kg N/ha) mineral nitrogen plant fertilisation on the cotton growth and yield was tested. The plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and the N-fertilisation alone promoted the plant growth, by the PGPR similar to the low N-fertilising. The cotton yield showed no significant difference between both treatments. The combined use of PGPR with different nitrogen plant fertilisation techniques resulted in the promotion of plant growth significantly compared to the mineral fertilising alone but differed significantly depending on the applied N-amount. The cotton yield in the combined application of PGPR and low N-amount increased by 75%. In combination with high N-fertilisation the yield increased by 30% compared to each of the N-fertilisation techniques. The effect was found to be based mainly on the PGPR growth promotion activity, resulting in larger plant root and stem–leaf system, increasing the possibilities to uptake available mineral nutrients. The great ecological value of the observed effectiveness improving influence by PGPR on the mineral plant fertilisation is discussed. Keywords: PGPR Bacillus amyloliquefaciens biofertilising effectcottonenhancing effectiveness mineral fertilising Acknowledgements The author thank Prof. Dr Christof Engels, Humboldt-University Berlin, Germany, Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture, Dept. Crop and Animal Sciences, Division of Plant Nutrition and Fertlization, for the test plant nutrient analyses and critical help.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PGPR alone promoted cotton growth similarly to low nitrogen fertilization.

Treatment
PGPRe0
Interactor
PGPRe0symbiont
Outcome
plant growthe0
Direction
promotede0
Comparator
low N-fertilisinge0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and the N-fertilisation alone promoted the plant growth, by the PGPR similar to the low N-fertilising”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 253–402 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 144–150 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton yield did not differ significantly between PGPR and low nitrogen treatments.

Treatment
PGPRt0
Interactor
PGPRt0symbiont
Outcome
cotton yielde0
Direction
no significant differencee0
Comparator
low N-fertilisingt0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The cotton yield showed no significant difference between both treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 404–477 · show in text ↑
t0

“The plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and the N-fertilisation alone promoted the plant growth, by the PGPR similar to the low N-fertilising”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 253–402 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

PGPR plus nitrogen significantly promoted cotton growth relative to nitrogen alone.

Treatment
combined use of PGPR with different nitrogen plant fertilisation techniquese0
Interactor
PGPRe0symbiont
Outcome
plant growthe0
Direction
promotione0
Comparator
mineral fertilising alonee0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The combined use of PGPR with different nitrogen plant fertilisation techniques resulted in the promotion of plant growth significantly compared to the mineral fertilising alone but differed significantly depending on the applied N-amount”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 479–717 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 144–150 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PGPR with low nitrogen raised cotton yield by 75%.

Treatment
combined application of PGPR and low N-amounte0
Interactor
PGPRe0symbiont
Outcome
cotton yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
75%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The cotton yield in the combined application of PGPR and low N-amount increased by 75%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 719–805 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PGPR with high nitrogen increased cotton yield by 30% versus nitrogen alone.

Treatment
high N-fertilisatione0
Interactor
PGPRt1symbiont
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
30%e0
Comparator
N-fertilisation techniquese0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In combination with high N-fertilisation the yield increased by 30% compared to each of the N-fertilisation techniques”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 807–925 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 144–150 · show in text ↑
t1

“PGPR”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 48–52 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors attribute increased nutrient uptake to PGPR-promoted root and shoot growth.

Interactor
PGPRe0symbiont
Outcome
possibilities to uptake available mineral nutrientse0
Qualifier
larger plant root and stem–leaf systeme0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The effect was found to be based mainly on the PGPR growth promotion activity, resulting in larger plant root and stem–leaf system, increasing the possibilities to uptake available mineral nutrients”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 927–1125 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 144–150 · show in text ↑

inoculation · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

50 papers: 46 positive, 4 negative or no effect

45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

46 papers more in this group

See all 50 papers →

inoculation · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

73 papers: 61 positive, 12 negative or no effect

60 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

69 papers more in this group

See all 73 papers →

nitrogen · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

153 papers: 129 positive, 24 negative or no effect

128 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

149 papers more in this group

See all 153 papers →

fertilization · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

202 papers: 177 positive, 25 negative or no effect

176 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

198 papers more in this group

See all 202 papers →

nitrogen · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

343 papers: 286 positive, 57 negative or no effect

285 papers in the same direction as this paper · 53 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

339 papers more in this group

See all 343 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.