Paper · 2025 · Journal of Experimental Agriculture International

Impact of Liquid Biofertilizers on Nutrition of Finger Millet and Residual Soil Fertility Status

Balram Yadav; Vikram Bharati; Tikendra Kumar Yadav; et al.

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A randomized block design experiment with 11 treatments and 3 replications was conducted during Kharif 2020 to investigate the impact of liquid biofertilizers on finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) growth and yield. The study used RAU-8 variety, sown on July 28, 2020, with a recommended fertilizer dose of 40:20:20 NPK kg/ha. Results showed that combining 100% RDF with liquid biofertilizer seed treatment and soil application significantly enhanced soil nutrient availability, dehydrogenase activity, and crop productivity, comparable to RDF alone. that integrating 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) with liquid biofertilizers significantly enhanced soil nutrient availability, with notable increases in nitrogen (185.25 kg/ha), phosphorus (19.21 kg/ha), and potassium (132.78 kg/ha) levels under the application of 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) in conjunction with liquid biofertilizer treatment, comprising seed inoculation (5 ml/kg seed) and subsequent soil application (2.5 L mixed with 500 kg farmyard manure applied in furrows), which was found to be at par with treatment T10- RDF (40:20:20, N:P:K Kg ha -1) and lower available nitrogen (121.52 kg ha -1 kgha-1), phosphorus (10.40 kg ha -1) and potassium (84.78 kg ha -1 ) in soil were estimated with T11 -(control) has observed that the greatest post-harvest availability of total N, P2O5, and K2O from finger millet has demonstrated a noticeably higher nutritional availability.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The combined fertilizer and biofertilizer treatment enhanced soil nutrient availability.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
combining 100% RDF with liquid biofertilizer seed treatment and soil applicatione0
Outcome
soil nutrient availabilitye0
Direction
enhancede0
Comparator
RDF alonee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“combining 100% RDF with liquid biofertilizer seed treatment and soil application significantly enhanced soil nutrient availability, dehydrogenase activity, and crop productivity, comparable to RDF alone”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 348–550 · show in text ↑
t0

“finger millet”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 48–61 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The combined treatment enhanced soil dehydrogenase activity.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
combining 100% RDF with liquid biofertilizer seed treatment and soil applicatione0
Outcome
dehydrogenase activitye0
Direction
enhancede0
Comparator
RDF alonee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“combining 100% RDF with liquid biofertilizer seed treatment and soil application significantly enhanced soil nutrient availability, dehydrogenase activity, and crop productivity, comparable to RDF alone”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 348–550 · show in text ↑
t0

“finger millet”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 48–61 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The combined treatment enhanced crop productivity.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
combining 100% RDF with liquid biofertilizer seed treatment and soil applicatione0
Outcome
crop productivitye0
Direction
enhancede0
Comparator
RDF alonee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“combining 100% RDF with liquid biofertilizer seed treatment and soil application significantly enhanced soil nutrient availability, dehydrogenase activity, and crop productivity, comparable to RDF alone”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 348–550 · show in text ↑
t0

“finger millet”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 48–61 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined treatment soil nitrogen availability was 185.25 kg/ha.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) in conjunction with liquid biofertilizer treatmente0
Outcome
nitrogene0
Value
185.25 kg/hae0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“nitrogen (185.25 kg/ha), phosphorus (19.21 kg/ha), and potassium (132.78 kg/ha) levels under the application of 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) in conjunction with liquid biofertilizer treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 716–921 · show in text ↑
t0

“finger millet”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 48–61 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined treatment soil phosphorus availability was 19.21 kg/ha.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanat0
Outcome
phosphoruse0
Value
19.21 kg/hae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“nitrogen (185.25 kg/ha), phosphorus (19.21 kg/ha), and potassium (132.78 kg/ha) levels under the application of 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) in conjunction with liquid biofertilizer treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 716–921 · show in text ↑
t0

“finger millet”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 48–61 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined treatment soil potassium availability was 132.78 kg/ha.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanat0
Outcome
potassiume0
Value
132.78 kg/hae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“nitrogen (185.25 kg/ha), phosphorus (19.21 kg/ha), and potassium (132.78 kg/ha) levels under the application of 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) in conjunction with liquid biofertilizer treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 716–921 · show in text ↑
t0

“finger millet”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 48–61 · show in text ↑

seed treatment · nutrient: content · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
See all 2 papers →

seed treatment · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 11 positive, 1 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

inoculation · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 13 positive, 3 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

application · nutrient: content · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 17 positive, 1 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: content · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results

52 papers: 51 positive, 1 negative or no effect

50 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

48 papers more in this group

See all 52 papers →

fertilization · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results

174 papers: 171 positive, 3 negative or no effect

170 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

170 papers more in this group

See all 174 papers →

application · soil: biology · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

inoculation · soil: biology · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

8 of 11 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.