Abstract
Chili pepper is a high-value horticultural crop that has significant nutritional and economic value. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) play a vital role in enhancing plant growth and productivity while supporting sustainable agriculture. This study evaluated the effect of PGPR derived from sugarcane roots and mimosa roots applied to chili pepper plants. The study was conducted using a factorial randomized complete block design. The first factor was the concentration of sugarcane root PGPR (0, 10, 20, 30 mL L-1), and the second factor was the mimosa root PGPR (0, 10, 20, 30 mL L-1). Observation variables included nitrogen uptake, plant height, flowering age, and fruit weight. The results showed that the application of sugarcane root PGPR had a significant effect on plant height and nitrogen uptake, with a concentration of 20 mL L-1 producing the highest nitrogen uptake (1.66 g). PGPR from mimosa root significantly affected flowering age and fruit weight, with a concentration of 30 mL L-1 significantly increasing fruit weight. However, the combination of both types of PGPR did not have a significant effect on all the variables observed. Thus, the application of PGPR from sugarcane root and mimosa root separately effectively increased the growth and yield of chili pepper plants, while the combination of both did not show a synergistic effect. Keywords: chili; Mimosa pudica; nitrogen
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Sugarcane-root PGPR significantly affected chili plant height.
- Taxon
- Capsicum frutescens L.
Capsicum frutescenst0 - Treatment
- application of sugarcane root PGPRe0
- Interactor
- PGPRe0symbiont
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the application of sugarcane root PGPR had a significant effect on plant height and nitrogen uptake”
t0“Capsicum frutescens L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugarcane-root PGPR significantly affected nitrogen uptake.
- Taxon
- Capsicum frutescens L.Capsicum frutescenst0
- Treatment
- application of sugarcane root PGPRe0
- Interactor
- PGPRe0symbiont
- Outcome
- nitrogen uptakee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the application of sugarcane root PGPR had a significant effect on plant height and nitrogen uptake”
t0“Capsicum frutescens L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugarcane-root PGPR at 20 mL L-1 produced the highest nitrogen uptake, 1.66 g.
- Taxon
- Capsicum frutescens L.Capsicum frutescenst0
- Treatment
- 20 mL L-1e0
- Outcome
- nitrogen uptakee0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 1.66 ge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a concentration of 20 mL L-1 producing the highest nitrogen uptake (1.66 g)”
t0“Capsicum frutescens L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mimosa-root PGPR significantly affected flowering age.
- Taxon
- Capsicum frutescens L.Capsicum frutescenst0
- Treatment
- PGPR from mimosa roote0
- Interactor
- PGPRe0symbiont
- Outcome
- flowering agee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PGPR from mimosa root significantly affected flowering age and fruit weight”
t0“Capsicum frutescens L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mimosa-root PGPR at 30 mL L-1 significantly increased fruit weight.
- Taxon
- Capsicum frutescens L.Capsicum frutescenst0
- Treatment
- 30 mL L-1e0
- Outcome
- fruit weighte0
- Direction
- increasinge0
Not reportedInteractorComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a concentration of 30 mL L-1 significantly increasing fruit weight”
t0“Capsicum frutescens L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined sugarcane-root and mimosa-root PGPR had no significant effect on the observed variables.
- Taxon
- Capsicum frutescens L.Capsicum frutescenst0
- Treatment
- combination of both types of PGPRe0
- Interactor
- PGPRe0symbiont
- Outcome
- all the variables observede0
- Direction
- did not have a significant effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the combination of both types of PGPR did not have a significant effect on all the variables observed”
t0“Capsicum frutescens L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded that separate PGPR applications increased chili growth and yield.
- Treatment
- application of PGPR from sugarcane root and mimosa root separatelye0
- Interactor
- PGPRe0symbiont
- Outcome
- growth and yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
CapsicumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“application of PGPR from sugarcane root and mimosa root separately effectively increased the growth and yield of chili pepper plants”
Claim · model-written summary
The combined PGPR treatments showed no synergistic effect.
- Taxon
- Capsicum frutescens L.Capsicum frutescenst0
- Treatment
- combination of bothe0
- Outcome
- synergistic effecte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the combination of both did not show a synergistic effect”
t0“Capsicum frutescens L.”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · yield · Capsicum (peppers)Positive and negative results
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 papers →inoculation · nutrient: content · Capsicum frutescens (hot pepper)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.