Paper · 2023 · International Journal of Plant & Soil Science

Microbial Biofortification of Zn by Plant Growth Promoting Microorganisms in Wheat (Triticum aestivum)

R. R. Bagmare; Syed Ismail

5
claims
10
verbatim quotes
2
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A lab experiment was conducted during 2021 and field experiment was conducted during the Rabi seasons of 2021 and 2022 to study the biofortification of Zn by plant growth-promoting microorganisms in wheat (Triticum aestivum). The results emerged from the lab experiment indicated that Pseudomonas striata, Bacillus megaterium and Trichoderma viride showed significantly highest colony diameter, clearing zone, halozone diameter, solubilization index and solubilization efficiency. Biofortification of zinc i.e. highest increase zinc content in grain and in straw over control and only RDF was reported in treatment T8 i.e. RDF + Azotobacter chroococcum + Pseudomonas striata (19.52 and 15.76 percent respectively)

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 5

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Pseudomonas striata had significantly highest colony diameter, clearing zone, halozone diameter, solubilization index and efficiency in the laboratory test.

Interactor
Pseudomonas striataPseudomonas putidae0symbiont
Outcome
colony diameter, clearing zone, halozone diameter, solubilization index and solubilization efficiencye0

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 ↗
Pseudomonas putida
Pseudomonas putida · InteractorMroghair · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–102 · show in text ↑
e0

“Pseudomonas striata, Bacillus megaterium and Trichoderma viride showed significantly highest colony diameter, clearing zone, halozone diameter, solubilization index and solubilization efficiency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 285–479 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacillus megaterium had significantly highest colony diameter, clearing zone, halozone diameter, solubilization index and efficiency in the laboratory test.

Interactor
Bacillus megateriumPriestia megateriume0symbiont
Outcome
colony diameter, clearing zone, halozone diameter, solubilization index and solubilization efficiencye0

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 ↗
Priestia megaterium
Priestia megaterium · InteractorOsmoregulator / Osmoregulator at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–102 · show in text ↑
e0

“Pseudomonas striata, Bacillus megaterium and Trichoderma viride showed significantly highest colony diameter, clearing zone, halozone diameter, solubilization index and solubilization efficiency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 285–479 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Trichoderma viride had significantly highest colony diameter, clearing zone, halozone diameter, solubilization index and efficiency in the laboratory test.

Interactor
Trichoderma virideTrichoderma viridee0symbiont
Outcome
colony diameter, clearing zone, halozone diameter, solubilization index and solubilization efficiencye0

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 ↗
Trichoderma viride
Trichoderma viride · InteractorKatja Schulz · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–102 · show in text ↑
e0

“Pseudomonas striata, Bacillus megaterium and Trichoderma viride showed significantly highest colony diameter, clearing zone, halozone diameter, solubilization index and solubilization efficiency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 285–479 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

RDF plus Azotobacter chroococcum and Pseudomonas striata gave the greatest wheat grain zinc increase, 19.52 percent, over control and RDF alone.

Treatment
RDF + Azotobacter chroococcum + Pseudomonas striatae0
Interactor
Azotobacter chroococcumAzotobacter chroococcume0symbiont
Second interactor
Pseudomonas striataPseudomonas putidae0symbiont
Outcome
zinc content in graine0
Direction
highest increasee0
Value
19.52e0
Comparator
control and only RDFe0

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 ↗
Pseudomonas putida
Pseudomonas putida · Second interactorMroghair · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–102 · show in text ↑
e0

“highest increase zinc content in grain and in straw over control and only RDF was reported in treatment T8 i.e. RDF + Azotobacter chroococcum + Pseudomonas striata (19.52 and 15.76 percent respectively)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 511–713 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

RDF plus Azotobacter chroococcum and Pseudomonas striata gave the greatest wheat straw zinc increase, 15.76 percent, over control and RDF alone.

Treatment
RDF + Azotobacter chroococcum + Pseudomonas striatae0
Interactor
Azotobacter chroococcumAzotobacter chroococcume0symbiont
Second interactor
Pseudomonas striataPseudomonas putidae0symbiont
Outcome
zinc content in grain and in strawe0
Direction
highest increasee0
Value
15.76 percente0
Comparator
control and only RDFe0

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 ↗
Pseudomonas putida
Pseudomonas putida · Second interactorMroghair · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–102 · show in text ↑
e0

“highest increase zinc content in grain and in straw over control and only RDF was reported in treatment T8 i.e. RDF + Azotobacter chroococcum + Pseudomonas striata (19.52 and 15.76 percent respectively)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 511–713 · show in text ↑

Pseudomonas putida · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

Azotobacter chroococcum · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)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 →

fertilization · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

959 papers: 854 positive, 105 negative or no effect

853 papers in the same direction as this paper · 95 in the opposite direction · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

955 papers more in this group

See all 959 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.