Paper · 2016 · Cogent Food & Agriculture

Potential role of bio-inoculants and organic matter for the management of root-knot nematode infesting chickpea

Mohammad Akram; Rose Rizvi; Aisha Sumbul; et al.

8
claims
20
verbatim quotes
18
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

A pot experiment was conducted during 2013–14 to observe the potential role of some organics and bio-organics such as Calotropis procera, Glomus fasciculatum, and Azotobacter chroococcum on some growth attributes of chickpea and subsequently on the root-knot development caused by Meloidogyne incognita. Individual and conjoint treatments significantly enhanced the plant growth parameters as compared to unamended control. Physiological parameter such as chlorophyll content also exhibited significant improvement in all the treatments over non-amended control. The highest improvement in growth parameters of chickpea was observed in combined application of G. fasciculatum and A. chroococcum in pots amended with C. procera. Moreover, combined treatments of both bio-inoculants and C. procera markedly reduced the multiplication and reproduction rate of root-knot nematodes in terms of number of root galls and nematode population. Percent mycorrhization in terms of external and internal colonizations was increased significantly in plant amended with organic and bio-organics conjointly. The regression studies revealed significant relationship between number of galls and some plant growth variables. Present findings may promote organic-based farm products and eco-friendly management of M. incognita as this is a safer and cost-effective option.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Individual and combined organic and bio-organic treatments significantly enhanced chickpea growth relative to unamended control.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
Individual and conjoint treatmentse1
Outcome
plant growth parameterse1
Direction
enhancede1
Comparator
unamended controle1

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Calotropis procera, Glomus fasciculatum, and Azotobacter chroococcum on some growth attributes of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 118–224 · show in text ↑
e1

“Individual and conjoint treatments significantly enhanced the plant growth parameters as compared to unamended control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 304–423 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

All treatments significantly improved chickpea chlorophyll content over non-amended control.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
all the treatmentse1
Outcome
chlorophyll contente1
Direction
improvemente1
Comparator
non-amended controle1

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“growth attributes of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 195–224 · show in text ↑
e1

“chlorophyll content also exhibited significant improvement in all the treatments over non-amended control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 456–562 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combining G. fasciculatum and A. chroococcum with C. procera gave the greatest chickpea growth improvement.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
combined application of G. fasciculatum and A. chroococcum in pots amended with C. procerae0
Interactor
G. fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse0symbiont
Second interactor
A. chroococcumAzotobacter chroococcume0symbiont
Outcome
growth parameters of chickpeae0
Direction
highest improvemente0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest improvement in growth parameters of chickpea was observed in combined application of G. fasciculatum and A. chroococcum in pots amended with C. procera.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 563–727 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined bio-inoculants and C. procera reduced root gall numbers.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
combined treatments of both bio-inoculants and C. procerae1
Interactor
Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae2pathogen
Outcome
number of root gallse1
Direction
reducede1

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne incognita
Meloidogyne incognita · InteractorPhoto by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“growth attributes of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 195–224 · show in text ↑
e1

“combined treatments of both bio-inoculants and C. procera markedly reduced the multiplication and reproduction rate of root-knot nematodes in terms of number of root galls and nematode population.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 738–934 · show in text ↑
e2

“Meloidogyne incognita”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 281–302 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined bio-inoculants and C. procera reduced nematode population.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
combined treatments of both bio-inoculants and C. procerae1
Interactor
Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae2pathogen
Outcome
nematode populatione1
Direction
reducede1

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne incognita
Meloidogyne incognita · InteractorPhoto by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“growth attributes of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 195–224 · show in text ↑
e1

“combined treatments of both bio-inoculants and C. procera markedly reduced the multiplication and reproduction rate of root-knot nematodes in terms of number of root galls and nematode population.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 738–934 · show in text ↑
e2

“Meloidogyne incognita”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 281–302 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Joint organic and bio-organic amendments significantly increased external mycorrhizal colonization.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
organic and bio-organics conjointlye1
Interactor
Glomus fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse2symbiont
Outcome
Percent mycorrhizatione1
Direction
increasede1

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“growth attributes of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 195–224 · show in text ↑
e1

“Percent mycorrhization in terms of external and internal colonizations was increased significantly in plant amended with organic and bio-organics conjointly.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 935–1092 · show in text ↑
e2

“Glomus fasciculatum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 138–157 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Joint organic and bio-organic amendments significantly increased internal mycorrhizal colonization.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
organic and bio-organics conjointlye1
Interactor
Glomus fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse2symbiont
Outcome
internal colonizationse1
Direction
increasede1

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“growth attributes of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 195–224 · show in text ↑
e1

“Percent mycorrhization in terms of external and internal colonizations was increased significantly in plant amended with organic and bio-organics conjointly.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 935–1092 · show in text ↑
e2

“Glomus fasciculatum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 138–157 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Root gall number was significantly related to chickpea growth variables.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Interactor
Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae2pathogen
Outcome
number of galls and some plant growth variablese1

Not reportedDirection

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne incognita
Meloidogyne incognita · InteractorPhoto by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“growth attributes of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 195–224 · show in text ↑
e1

“The regression studies revealed significant relationship between number of galls and some plant growth variables.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1093–1206 · show in text ↑
e2

“Meloidogyne incognita”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 281–302 · show in text ↑

Calotropis procera · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
See all 2 papers →

Calotropis procera · Meloidogyne incognita · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)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 →

Rhizophagus fasciculatus · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.