Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Combined rhizobia, rhizobacteria, iron oxide and pressmud improved chickpea shoot fresh weight by 87% compared with the untreated control in contaminated soil.

A claim from Combined application of rhizobacteria, organic and inorganic amendments reduce lead and cadmium uptake and improve growth of chickpea by modulating physiology and antioxidant status · 2025

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined rhizobia, rhizobacteria, iron oxide and pressmud improved chickpea shoot fresh weight by 87% compared with the untreated control in contaminated soil.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
combined application of rhizobia, rhizobacteria, iron oxide, and pressmude1
Interactor
rhizobiae1symbiont
Second interactor
rhizobacteriaHyphomicrobialese1symbiont
Outcome
shoot fresh weighte1
Direction
improvede1
Value
87%e1
Comparator
respective untreated controle1
Setting
contaminated soile1

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageQualifier

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“growth of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–133
e1

“combined application of rhizobia, rhizobacteria, iron oxide, and pressmud improved shoot fresh weight (87%), root fresh weight (47.9%), root length (47.9%), nodules plant−1 (2.58 folds), photosynthetic rate (63%) and grain yield (39%) of chickpea as compared to respective untreated control in contaminated soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 631–942

Title

Combined application of rhizobacteria, organic and inorganic amendments reduce lead and cadmium uptake and improve growth of chickpea by modulating physiology and antioxidant status

Laraib Saeed; Qasim Ali; Muhammad Aon; et al. International Journal of Phytoremediation 2025. doi:10.1080/15226514.2024.2444483

Other claims from this paper (9)

Record rev-2aa993cfd80ef0704ff923b7012bb64134a1b083c2a52cdb514b97d0e3cfe43a · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

inoculation · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

152 papers: 135 positive, 17 negative or no effect

134 papers in the same direction as this claim · 16 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
    Rhizobacterial seed and soil treatment delayed chickpea seedling emergence relative to controls.

    Influence of temperature on plant–rhizobacteria interactions related to biocontrol potential for suppression of fusarium wilt of chickpea · 2004 · compared with nontreated controls

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    S. rolfsii inoculation alone gave the lowest chickpea shoot and root dry biomass.

    Effect of soil amendment with Chenopodium album dry biomass and two Trichoderma species on growth of chickpea var. Noor 2009 in Sclerotium rolfsii contaminated soil · 2020 · compared with without any soil amendment

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    Inoculation with non-AM fungal endophytes had a neutral effect on chickpea biomass.

    Genotypic variation in the response of chickpea to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and non-mycorrhizal fungal endophytes · 2018

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    S. rolfsii reduced shoot dry weight by 21.4% versus negative control.

    ALLEVIATING STRESS OF SCLERTIUM ROLFSII ON GROWTH OF CHICKPEA VAR. BHAKKAR-2011 BY TRICHODERMA HARZIANUM AND T. VIRIDE · 2021 · compared with negative control

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    Combined nematode and fungal inocula had an additive effect on chickpea growth.

    Interaction of root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Ciceri and F. solani on chickpea1 · 1987

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Rhizobium inoculation did not significantly change intercepted total radiation or radiation use efficiency of chickpea compared with the non-inoculated control.

    Growth and yield response of chickpea to Rhizobium inoculation: productivity in relation to interception of radiation · 2015 · compared with non-inoculated control

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Inoculated chickpea showed no increase in measured growth and development traits.

    Growth and development responses of some legume species inoculated with a mycorrhiza-based biofertilizer · 2010

    Opposite direction

  8. negative
    Simultaneous fungus and nematode inoculation suppressed chickpea growth more than staggered inoculation.

    Interaction between Meloidogyne incognita and wilt inducing fungus, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri on chickpea cv. Dahod Yellow · 2000 · compared with preceding or succeeding inoculation of fungus and nematodes

    Opposite direction

143 papers more in this group

See all 152 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.