Abstract
Soil salinization is one of the major challenges for modern agriculture, posing a great threat to soil health and food security. Field experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of seed coating on soil environment and maize growth in saline soils. Three treatments were applied to maize seeds: coating with a microencapsulated microbial agent (ME), coating with microbial only (MB), and no coating (CK). High-throughput sequencing of soil bacterial and fungal 16S and ITS rRNA genes was performed using the Illumina HiSeq platform to analyze the effects of these treatments on soil bacterial and fungal diversity and community structure. Additionally, the influence of different treatments on endogenous hormones and yield of maize were investigated. It was found that the coating with a microencapsulated microbial agent led to decreases in pH and electrical conductivity (EC), while increasing the content of soil available phosphorus. This coating improved soil microbial diversity, significantly increasing the relative abundance of the main bacteria genera, Bacillus (34.9%), and the main fungal genera, Mortierella (190.4%). The treatment also significantly enhanced indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) by 51.2%, contributing to improvements in resistance to salt stress. The germination rate increased by 22.9%, the 100-grain weight increased by 12.7%, and grain yield increased by 14.3%. The use of the microencapsulated microbial agent effectively mitigated the adverse effects of salt stress on maize plants. This approach is beneficial for promoting sustainable agriculture in saline soils.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Microencapsulated microbial coating decreased soil pH and electrical conductivity.
- Treatment
- coating with a microencapsulated microbial agente0
- Outcome
- pH and electrical conductivity (EC)e0
- Direction
- decreasese0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“coating with a microencapsulated microbial agent led to decreases in pH and electrical conductivity (EC)”
t0“Maize Grain Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The coating increased soil available phosphorus.
- Treatment
- Microencapsulated Microbial Seed Coatingt0
- Outcome
- soil available phosphoruse0
- Direction
- increasinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increasing the content of soil available phosphorus.”
t0“Microencapsulated Microbial Seed Coating Could Improve Soil Environment and Maize Grain Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The coating improved soil microbial diversity.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This coating improved soil microbial diversity”
t0“Maize Grain Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The coating increased Bacillus relative abundance by 34.9%.
- Treatment
- Microencapsulated Microbial Seed Coatingt0
- Outcome
- relative abundance of the main bacteria genera, Bacilluse0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Value
- 34.9%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significantly increasing the relative abundance of the main bacteria genera, Bacillus (34.9%)”
t0“Microencapsulated Microbial Seed Coating Could Improve Soil Environment and Maize Grain Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The coating increased Mortierella relative abundance by 190.4%.
- Treatment
- Microencapsulated Microbial Seed Coatingt0
- Outcome
- Mortierellae0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Value
- 190.4%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significantly increasing the relative abundance of the main bacteria genera, Bacillus (34.9%), and the main fungal genera, Mortierella (190.4%)”
t0“Microencapsulated Microbial Seed Coating Could Improve Soil Environment and Maize Grain Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatment increased indole-3-acetic acid by 51.2%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The treatment also significantly enhanced indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) by 51.2%”
t0“Maize Grain Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Germination increased by 22.9%.
- Treatment
- Microencapsulated Microbial Seed Coatingt0
- Outcome
- germination ratee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 22.9%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The germination rate increased by 22.9%”
t0“Microencapsulated Microbial Seed Coating Could Improve Soil Environment and Maize Grain Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
100-grain weight increased by 12.7%.
- Treatment
- Microencapsulated Microbial Seed Coatingt0
- Outcome
- 100-grain weighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 12.7%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the 100-grain weight increased by 12.7%”
t0“Microencapsulated Microbial Seed Coating Could Improve Soil Environment and Maize Grain Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield increased by 14.3%.
- Treatment
- Microencapsulated Microbial Seed Coatingt0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 14.3%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield increased by 14.3%”
t0“Microencapsulated Microbial Seed Coating Could Improve Soil Environment and Maize Grain Yield”
The same questions in other papers
seed treatment · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →seed treatment · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →seed treatment · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
149 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
161 papers more in this group
See all 165 papers →seed treatment · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
238 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
263 papers more in this group
See all 267 papers →storage · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
storage · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
seed treatment · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.