Abstract
The use of phosphogypsum (PG) and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) for agricultural purposes are good options to improve soil properties and increase crop yield. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of different rates of PG (ton ha−1; 0 (PG1), 3 (PG2), 6 (PG3), and 9 (PG4)) combined with PGPR inoculation (Azospirillum lipoferum (control, T1), A. lipoferum + Bacillus coagulans (T2), A. lipoferum + B. circulance (T3), and A. lipoferum + B. subtilis (T4)) on soil properties, plant physiology, antioxidant enzymes, nutrient uptake, and yield of maize plants (Zea mays L., cv. HSC 10) grown in salt-affected soil. Over two growing seasons, 2019 and 2020, field experiments were conducted as a split-plot design with triplicates. The results show that applying PG (9 ton ha−1) and co-inoculation (A. lipoferum + B. circulance) treatment significantly increased chlorophyll and carotenoids content, antioxidant enzymes, microbial communities, soil enzymes activity, and nutrient contents, and showed inhibitory impacts on proline content and pH, as well as EC and ESP, thus improving the productivity of maize plant compared to the control treatment. It could be concluded that PG, along with microbial inoculation, may be an important approach for ameliorating the negative impacts of salinity on maize plants.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphogypsum at 9 t/ha with co-inoculation significantly increased chlorophyll and carotenoids content compared with control.
- Material
- HSC 10e0
- Treatment
- PG (9 ton ha−1) and co-inoculation (A. lipoferum + B. circulance)e1
- Outcome
- chlorophyll and carotenoids contente1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- control treatmente2
- Setting
- field experimentse3
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize plants (Zea mays L., cv. HSC 10) grown in salt-affected soil”
e1“applying PG (9 ton ha−1) and co-inoculation (A. lipoferum + B. circulance) treatment significantly increased chlorophyll and carotenoids content, antioxidant enzymes, microbial communities, soil enzymes activity, and nutrient contents”
e2“compared to the control treatment”
e3“field experiments were conducted as a split-plot design with triplicates”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphogypsum with co-inoculation significantly increased antioxidant enzymes, microbial communities and soil enzymes activity compared with control.
- Material
- HSC 10e0
- Treatment
- PG (9 ton ha−1) and co-inoculation (A. lipoferum + B. circulance)e1
- Outcome
- antioxidant enzymes, microbial communities, soil enzymes activitye1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- control treatmente2
- Setting
- field experimentse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize plants (Zea mays L., cv. HSC 10) grown in salt-affected soil”
e1“applying PG (9 ton ha−1) and co-inoculation (A. lipoferum + B. circulance) treatment significantly increased chlorophyll and carotenoids content, antioxidant enzymes, microbial communities, soil enzymes activity, and nutrient contents”
e2“compared to the control treatment”
e3“field experiments were conducted as a split-plot design with triplicates”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphogypsum with co-inoculation significantly increased nutrient contents compared with control.
- Material
- HSC 10e0
- Treatment
- PG (9 ton ha−1) and co-inoculation (A. lipoferum + B. circulance)e1
- Outcome
- nutrient contentse1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- control treatmente2
- Setting
- field experimentse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize plants (Zea mays L., cv. HSC 10) grown in salt-affected soil”
e1“applying PG (9 ton ha−1) and co-inoculation (A. lipoferum + B. circulance) treatment significantly increased chlorophyll and carotenoids content, antioxidant enzymes, microbial communities, soil enzymes activity, and nutrient contents”
e2“compared to the control treatment”
e3“field experiments were conducted as a split-plot design with triplicates”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphogypsum with co-inoculation decreased proline content compared with control.
- Material
- HSC 10e0
- Treatment
- PG (9 ton ha−1) and co-inoculation (A. lipoferum + B. circulance)e1
- Outcome
- proline contente4
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede4
- Comparator
- control treatmente2
- Setting
- field experimentse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize plants (Zea mays L., cv. HSC 10) grown in salt-affected soil”
e1“applying PG (9 ton ha−1) and co-inoculation (A. lipoferum + B. circulance) treatment significantly increased chlorophyll and carotenoids content, antioxidant enzymes, microbial communities, soil enzymes activity, and nutrient contents”
e2“compared to the control treatment”
e4“showed inhibitory impacts on proline content and pH, as well as EC and ESP”
e3“field experiments were conducted as a split-plot design with triplicates”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphogypsum with co-inoculation decreased pH, EC and ESP compared with control.
- Material
- HSC 10e0
- Treatment
- PG (9 ton ha−1) and co-inoculation (A. lipoferum + B. circulance)e1
- Outcome
- pH, as well as EC and ESPe4
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede4
- Comparator
- control treatmente2
- Setting
- field experimentse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize plants (Zea mays L., cv. HSC 10) grown in salt-affected soil”
e1“applying PG (9 ton ha−1) and co-inoculation (A. lipoferum + B. circulance) treatment significantly increased chlorophyll and carotenoids content, antioxidant enzymes, microbial communities, soil enzymes activity, and nutrient contents”
e2“compared to the control treatment”
e4“showed inhibitory impacts on proline content and pH, as well as EC and ESP”
e3“field experiments were conducted as a split-plot design with triplicates”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphogypsum with co-inoculation improved maize productivity compared with control.
- Material
- HSC 10e0
- Treatment
- PG (9 ton ha−1) and co-inoculation (A. lipoferum + B. circulance)e1
- Outcome
- productivity of maize plante5
- Direction
- improvinge5
- Comparator
- control treatmente5
- Setting
- field experimentse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize plants (Zea mays L., cv. HSC 10) grown in salt-affected soil”
e1“applying PG (9 ton ha−1) and co-inoculation (A. lipoferum + B. circulance) treatment significantly increased chlorophyll and carotenoids content, antioxidant enzymes, microbial communities, soil enzymes activity, and nutrient contents”
e5“thus improving the productivity of maize plant compared to the control treatment”
e3“field experiments were conducted as a split-plot design with triplicates”
Claim · model-written summary
PG with microbial inoculation may be an important approach for ameliorating the negative impacts of salinity on maize.
- Treatment
- PG, along with microbial inoculatione6
- Outcome
- ameliorating the negative impacts of salinitye6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“PG, along with microbial inoculation, may be an important approach for ameliorating the negative impacts of salinity on maize plants”
The same questions in other papers
Azospirillum lipoferum · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Azospirillum lipoferum · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Azospirillum lipoferum · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →inoculation · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
84 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
91 papers more in this group
See all 95 papers →inoculation · physiology: osmolytes · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 papers →inoculation · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
61 papers more in this group
See all 65 papers →inoculation · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
61 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
67 papers more in this group
See all 71 papers →inoculation · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
287 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
302 papers more in this group
See all 306 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.