Abstract
Intensification of horticulture in Russia involves planting of new high-density orchards with drip irrigation and fertigation as well as intensification of the exploitation of traditional orchards. This approach involves an increase in mineral fertilizer application imposing the risk of soil fertility loss. For several reasons, the use of traditional organic fertilizers like manure in orchards is currently marginal. Although bacteria-based biofertilizers cannot substitute mineral fertilizers completely, they can significantly reduce the need for mineral fertilizer application. The effect of microbial biofertilizers of the brands “Azotovit” ( Azotobacter chroococcum ), “Phosphatovit” ( Bacillus mucilaginosus ), as well as a mixture of bacteria and the fungus, “Organic” ( Azotobacter chroococcum , Bacillus subtilis , Bacillus megaterium , Trichoderma harzian ) was studied in two field experiments. In the experiment #1, the preparations “Azotovit” and “Phosphatovit” were delivered through a drip irrigation system in various combinations with mineral fertilizers. In experiment #2, the preparation “Organic” was also applied to the soil with irrigation water, also in combination with the mineral fertilizer. When solely applied, none of the studied preparations changed significantly the soil nutrient content and yield as compared with the variant fertilized by the mineral fertilizer at the maximum studied application rate. The combination of the microbial biofertilizer and mineral fertilizers applied at a low rate ensured the yield commensurate to that obtained under high-rate application of the mineral fertilizer.
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 3
Claim · model-written summary
Microbial biofertilizers applied alone did not significantly change soil nutrient content or yield of apple compared with the mineral fertilizer at the maximum rate.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- the studied preparationse2
- Outcome
- soil nutrient content and yielde2
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede2
- Comparator
- the variant fertilized by the mineral fertilizer at the maximum studied application ratee2
- Setting
- field experimentse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple orchard”
e1“was studied in two field experiments”
e2“When solely applied, none of the studied preparations changed significantly the soil nutrient content and yield as compared with the variant fertilized by the mineral fertilizer at the maximum studied application rate”
Claim · model-written summary
Combining microbial biofertilizer with low-rate mineral fertilizer gave yield commensurate with high-rate mineral fertilizer.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- combination of the microbial biofertilizer and mineral fertilizers applied at a low ratee3
- Outcome
- yielde3
- Direction
- commensuratee3
- Comparator
- high-rate application of the mineral fertilizere3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple orchard”
e3“The combination of the microbial biofertilizer and mineral fertilizers applied at a low rate ensured the yield commensurate to that obtained under high-rate application of the mineral fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors state that microbial biofertilizers can significantly reduce the need for mineral fertilizer application in apple orchards.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- need for mineral fertilizer applicatione4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple orchard”
e4“they can significantly reduce the need for mineral fertilizer application”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →fertilization · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
149 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
174 papers more in this group
See all 178 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.