Intervention effectmodel-written summary

PGPR improved grapevine leaf macro- and micro-nutrient concentrations.

A claim from Effects of Root Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria Inoculations on the Growth and Nutrient Content of Grapevine · 2018

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PGPR improved grapevine leaf macro- and micro-nutrient concentrations.

Taxon
grapevineVitise0
Organ / stage
leavese0
Treatment
Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR)e0
Interactor
Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR)e0symbiont
Outcome
macro- and micro-nutrient concentrationse0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

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

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) has improved macro- and micro-nutrient concentrations in grapevine leaves, and stimulated plant growth.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 463–610

Title

Effects of Root Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria Inoculations on the Growth and Nutrient Content of Grapevine

Ummugulsum Erdogan; Metin Turan; Fadime Ates; et al. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 2018. doi:10.1080/00103624.2018.1474910

Other claims from this paper (6)

Record rev-71d4c8b2b576a2fb223cf0c343a0e5438cfbf64906d7dce4a124be3104b137df · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer

inoculation · molecular: metabolites · VitisPositive and negative results

10 papers: 8 positive, 2 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this claim · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
    Opines were seldom detected in root cultures from the other bacterial strains, compared with strain 8196.

    Grapevine root transformation with Agrobacterium rhizogenes · 2015 · compared with strain 8196

    Opposite direction

  2. no effect
    Inoculation without flies did not promote acetic acid generation.

    Developing management solutions and understanding environmental associations of sour rot in grapes · 2016

    Opposite direction

  3. positive
    DR-39 reduced profenofos half life in broth to 4.03 days versus 12.90 days in control.

    Biodegradation of Profenofos by Bacillus subtilis Isolated from Grapevines (Vitis vinifera) · 2013 · compared with uninoculated control

    Same direction

  4. positive
    The inoculant significantly increased cluster weight of symptomatic grapevines (109.63 g/cluster) relative to symptomatic-nontreated vines (92.05 g/cluster), comparable to healthy vines (122.09 g/cluster).

    A Soil Inoculant InhibitsArmillaria melleaIn Vitro and Improves Productivity of Grapevines with Root Disease · 2006 · compared with symptomatic-nontreated vines

    Same direction

  5. positive
    PGPR applied soils had 76.2% higher organic matter content than the control group.

    Effects of PGPR Bacteria Applications on Soil Properties, Plant Growth and Yield Values in Karaerik and Narince Grape Varieties · 2023 · compared with control group

    Same direction

  6. positive
    Resveratrol content rose sharply within one hour in inoculated resistant Campbell Early.

    Salicylic acid and resveratrol content changes as affected by downy mildew and anthracnose in grapevines · 2005

    Same direction

  7. positive
    Compost with the microbial consortium increased soil nitrogen, carbon, and organic matter.

    Integrating beneficial microorganisms and soil amendment for grapevine health: toward eco-friendly seasonal fungal disease management and soil improvement · 2025

    Same direction

  8. positive
    Resistant grapevine cultivars had increased sesquiterpenes six days after inoculation relative to day zero.

    Identification of volatile organic compounds in different grapevine genotypes after inoculation with Plasmopara viticola · 2015 · compared with day zero

    Same direction

1 paper more in this group

See all 10 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.