Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Bacterial inoculation did not significantly affect manganese concentration, content or root-to-shoot translocation in wheat.

A claim from Effects of Microbial Siderophores Produced by Native Azotobacter chroococcum Strains on Micronutrients Uptake by Wheat Plant · 2012

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial inoculation did not significantly affect manganese concentration, content or root-to-shoot translocation in wheat.

Taxon
Triticum aestivumTriticum aestivume1
Treatment
inoculation with Azotobactere2
Interactor
AzotobacterAzotobactere2symbiont
Outcome
Mn concentration and content as well as its translocation from root to the shoote0
Direction
not significantly affectede0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

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 ↗
Azotobacter
Azotobacter · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)DAN H. JONES · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Mn concentration and content as well as its translocation from root to the shoot were not significantly affected.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1170–1283
e1

“wheat plants (Triticum aestivum L.CV. Falat ) were inoculated with 14 bacterial strains”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 375–462
e2

“inoculation with Azotobacter”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 899–927

Title

Effects of Microbial Siderophores Produced by Native Azotobacter chroococcum Strains on Micronutrients Uptake by Wheat Plant

Leila Rahimi; Nasser Aliasgharzad; Shahin Oustan; et al. 2012

Other claims from this paper (3)

Record rev-4e8536c4af2c24f4b6c35a8a060651a470cdcfd9163a08a9ddf257de2272e79e · schema claims-v0.9 · position 3 in the model’s answer

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

14 papers: 13 positive, 1 negative or no effect

13 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
  6. positive
  7. positive
  8. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

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

277 papers: 263 positive, 14 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this claim · 263 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
  6. positive
  7. positive
  8. positive

268 papers more in this group

See all 277 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.