Intervention effectmodel-written summary

When Douglas-fir seedlings and rhizosphere bacteria from the same geographic site were pooled, shoot branch number and root dry weight increased significantly relative to uninoculated controls.

A claim from Ecological growth response specificity of two Douglas-fir ecotypes inoculated with coexistent beneficial rhizosphere bacteria · 1994

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

When Douglas-fir seedlings and rhizosphere bacteria from the same geographic site were pooled, shoot branch number and root dry weight increased significantly relative to uninoculated controls.

Taxon
Douglas-firPseudotsuga menziesiie0
Treatment
treatments of Douglas-fir seedlings and rhizosphere bacteria that originated from the same geographic sitee0
Interactor
rhizosphere bacteriae0other
Outcome
shoot branch number and root dry weighte0
Direction
increasese0
Comparator
uninoculated controlse0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

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

Pseudotsuga menziesii
Pseudotsuga menziesii · TaxonWalter Siegmund (talk) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“When treatments of Douglas-fir seedlings and rhizosphere bacteria that originated from the same geographic site were pooled and compared with uninoculated controls, significant increases in shoot branch number and root dry weight were also detected”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1390–1638

Title

Ecological growth response specificity of two Douglas-fir ecotypes inoculated with coexistent beneficial rhizosphere bacteria

C. P. Chanway; F. B. Holl Canadian Journal of Botany 1994. doi:10.1139/b94-077

Other claims from this paper (8)

Record rev-4fe6e70fa3b4baa12404743a0fa995091ba11c15812f5389b8d5cab955e2e107 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 7 in the model’s answer

inoculation · growth · Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 10 positive, 4 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this claim · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect
  4. no effect
  5. positive
  6. positive
  7. positive
  8. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

climate site · growth · Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this claim

  1. positive
See all 2 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.