Abstract
Aim Application of organic materials into agricultural systems enhances plant growth and yields, and improves soil fertility and structure. This study aimed to examine the effects of “compost extract (CE)”, a soil conditioner, and bio-organic manure (BOM) on the growth of lucerne ( Medicago sativa ), and compare the efficiency between BOM (including numbers of microorganisms) and CE (including no added microorganisms). Method A greenhouse experiment was conducted with four soil amendment treatments (control, BOM, CE and CEBOM), and was arranged in a completely randomized design with 10 replicates for each treatment. Plant biomass, nutritive value and rhizobia efficacy as well as soil characteristics were monitored. Result CE rather than BOM application showed a positive effect on plant growth and soil properties when compared with the control. Lucerne nodulation responded equally to CE addition and rhizobium inoculation. CE alone and in combination with BOM significantly increased plant growth and soil microbial activities and improved soil structure. The synergistic effects of CE and BOM indicate that applying CE and BOM together could increase their efficiency, leading to higher economic returns and improved soil health. However, CE alone is more effective for legume growth since nodulation was suppressed by nitrogen input from BOM. CE had a higher efficiency than BOM for enriching soil indigenous microorganisms instead of adding microorganisms and favouring plant nodulation.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
CE, rather than BOM, improved lucerne growth relative to control.
- Taxon
- lucerne
Medicago sativat0 - Treatment
- CEe0
- Outcome
- plant growthe0
- Direction
- positive effecte0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CE rather than BOM application showed a positive effect on plant growth and soil properties when compared with the control.”
t0“lucerne”
Claim · model-written summary
CE improved soil properties compared with control, unlike BOM.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“CE rather than BOM application showed a positive effect on plant growth and soil properties when compared with the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
Lucerne nodulation responded equally to CE addition and rhizobium inoculation.
- Taxon
- LucerneMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- CE additione0
- Outcome
- nodulatione0
- Direction
- equallye0
- Comparator
- rhizobium inoculatione0
RhizobiumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lucerne nodulation responded equally to CE addition and rhizobium inoculation.”
Claim · model-written summary
CE alone significantly increased plant growth and soil microbial activities and improved soil structure.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- CE alonee0
- Outcome
- plant growth and soil microbial activitiese0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CE alone and in combination with BOM significantly increased plant growth and soil microbial activities and improved soil structure.”
t0“lucerne”
Claim · model-written summary
CE combined with BOM significantly increased plant growth and soil microbial activities.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- CEe0
- Outcome
- plant growth and soil microbial activitiese0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- in combination with BOMe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CE alone and in combination with BOM significantly increased plant growth and soil microbial activities and improved soil structure.”
t0“lucerne”
Claim · model-written summary
CE alone improved soil structure.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“CE alone and in combination with BOM significantly increased plant growth and soil microbial activities and improved soil structure.”
Claim · model-written summary
CE combined with BOM improved soil structure.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“CE alone and in combination with BOM significantly increased plant growth and soil microbial activities and improved soil structure.”
Claim · model-written summary
Applying CE with BOM could improve efficiency, economic returns and soil health.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Outcome
- applying CE and BOM togethere0
- Qualifier
- could increase their efficiencye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The synergistic effects of CE and BOM indicate that applying CE and BOM together could increase their efficiency, leading to higher economic returns and improved soil health.”
t0“lucerne”
Claim · model-written summary
CE alone was more effective for legume growth than BOM.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- CE alonee0
- Outcome
- legume growthe0
- Direction
- more effectivee0
- Comparator
- BOMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, CE alone is more effective for legume growth since nodulation was suppressed by nitrogen input from BOM.”
t0“lucerne”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen input from BOM suppressed nodulation.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- nitrogen input from BOMe0
- Outcome
- nodulatione0
- Direction
- suppressede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“nodulation was suppressed by nitrogen input from BOM”
t0“lucerne”
Claim · model-written summary
CE enriched indigenous soil microorganisms more efficiently than BOM.
Verbatim
e0“CE had a higher efficiency than BOM for enriching soil indigenous microorganisms instead of adding microorganisms and favouring plant nodulation.”
Claim · model-written summary
CE favoured nodulation more efficiently than BOM.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- CEe0
- Outcome
- plant nodulatione0
- Direction
- higher efficiencye0
- Comparator
- BOMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CE had a higher efficiency than BOM for enriching soil indigenous microorganisms instead of adding microorganisms and favouring plant nodulation.”
t0“lucerne”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · symbiosis · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →fertilization · growth · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
85 papers more in this group
See all 89 papers →botanical · growth · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ
41 papers in the same direction as this paper · 59 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
97 papers more in this group
See all 101 papers →botanical · symbiosis · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
fertilization · Rhizobium · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
fertilization · soil: physics · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →fertilization · soil: biology · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →botanical · soil: biology · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.