Paper · 2012 · http://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj16(2)12/9.pdf

Response of Wheat Growth Parameters to Co-Inoculation of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) and Different Levels of Inorganic Nitrogen and Phosphorus

Zahra Saber; Mohammadali Esmaeili; A. Abbasian; et al.

7
claims
12
verbatim quotes
45
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract: N-fixing and P-solubilizing bacteria playing a significant role as a plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) in diverse crops. In order to evaluate efficiency of PGPR plus nitrogen and phosphorous chemical fertilizers on yield of wheat (cv. N-80-19) a field experiment was arranged in split-split plots based on randomized complete block design with three replications. The main and sub plot consisting of phosphorous 1 1 (0, 25 and 50 kg ha) and nitrogen (0, 50 and 100 kg ha), respectively and sub sub-plot were considered PGPR at four levels (control, inoculation with nitrogen fixing bacteria (PFB), phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB) and dual inoculation with PFB and PSB). Results showed that application of biofertilizers could increase grain yield and harvest index as much as 46.6 and 48.8 % compared to control, respectively. Integrated treatments showed better performance in terms of grain number per spike, tiller number and shoot length by 35.57, 35.1 and 31.9% compared to separate treatments, respectively. Furthermore, biofertilizers significantly reduced P and N fertilizer application without any reduction in wheat yield related parameters. Generally, results of this study revealed that using of biofertilizers especially dual inoculation had effective and significant role in terms of all studied yield characteristics except spike length in given wheat cultivar.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biofertilizers increased wheat grain yield by 46.6% versus control.

Treatment
biofertilizerse0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
46.6e0
Comparator
controle0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“application of biofertilizers could increase grain yield and harvest index as much as 46.6 and 48.8 % compared to control, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 716–852 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biofertilizers increased wheat harvest index by 48.8 % versus control.

Treatment
biofertilizerse0
Outcome
harvest indexe0
Direction
increasee0
Value
48.8 %e0
Comparator
controle0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“application of biofertilizers could increase grain yield and harvest index as much as 46.6 and 48.8 % compared to control, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 716–852 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Integrated treatments improved wheat grain number per spike by 35.57 relative to separate treatments.

Treatment
Integrated treatmentse0
Outcome
grain number per spikee0
Direction
better performancee0
Value
35.57e0
Comparator
separate treatmentse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Integrated treatments showed better performance in terms of grain number per spike, tiller number and shoot length by 35.57, 35.1 and 31.9% compared to separate treatments, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 853–1039 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Integrated treatments improved wheat tiller number by 35.1 relative to separate treatments.

Treatment
Integrated treatmentse0
Outcome
tiller numbere0
Direction
better performancee0
Value
35.1e0
Comparator
separate treatmentse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Integrated treatments showed better performance in terms of grain number per spike, tiller number and shoot length by 35.57, 35.1 and 31.9% compared to separate treatments, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 853–1039 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Integrated treatments improved wheat shoot length by 31.9% relative to separate treatments.

Treatment
Integrated treatmentse0
Outcome
shoot lengthe0
Direction
better performancee0
Value
31.9%e0
Comparator
separate treatmentse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Integrated treatments showed better performance in terms of grain number per spike, tiller number and shoot length by 35.57, 35.1 and 31.9% compared to separate treatments, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 853–1039 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Biofertilizers significantly reduced the need for phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizer without lowering wheat yield traits.

Treatment
biofertilizerse0
Outcome
P and N fertilizer applicatione0
Direction
reducede0
Qualifier
without any reduction in wheat yield related parameterse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“biofertilizers significantly reduced P and N fertilizer application without any reduction in wheat yield related parameters.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1053–1177 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Dual inoculation significantly improved studied wheat yield characteristics except spike length.

Treatment
dual inoculatione0
Outcome
all studied yield characteristicse0
Qualifier
except spike lengthe0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“biofertilizers especially dual inoculation had effective and significant role in terms of all studied yield characteristics except spike length in given wheat cultivar.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1234–1402 · show in text ↑

inoculation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

614 papers: 549 positive, 65 negative or no effect

548 papers in the same direction as this paper · 60 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

610 papers more in this group

See all 614 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.