Intervention effectmodel-written summary

T5 gave the highest field pea germination percentage, 92.25%, versus the T3 minimum of 84.50%.

A claim from Evaluation of integrated nutrient management on Seed quality parameters of field pea · 2019

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

T5 gave the highest field pea germination percentage, 92.25%, versus the T3 minimum of 84.50%.

Taxon
field peae0t0
Treatment
T5 (100% RDF + Rhizobium@20g/kg seed)e0
Interactor
RhizobiumRhizobiume0symbiont
Outcome
seed germination percentagee0
Direction
highere0
Value
92.25 %e0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingQualifier

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

Rhizobium
Rhizobium · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ninjatacoshell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the treatment T5 (100% RDF + Rhizobium@20g/kg seed) exhibited higher mean value for seed germination percentage (92.25 %)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 455–576
t0

“field pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–84

Title

Evaluation of integrated nutrient management on Seed quality parameters of field pea

Mahesh Chand Sutar; Hukam Singh Kothyari Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 2019

Other claims from this paper (4)

Record rev-e08902d79835cc4965fad729aecf5db05ba4aab65f80ac83de0896ae1a9b5208 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

Rhizobium · growth · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

22 papers: 21 positive, 1 negative or no effect

20 papers in the same direction as this claim · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
    Rhizobium inoculation did not affect pea germination.

    The Effect of Seed Treatment on Yield and Germination of Garden Peas · 1956

    Opposite direction

  2. positive
    Coinoculation produced 57.1% higher pea biomass.

    COINOCULATION OFRHIZOBIUM LEGUMINOSARUM-PR1 WITH A COLD TOLERANTPSEUDOMONASSP. IMPROVES IRON ACQUISITION, NUTRIENT UPTAKE AND GROWTH OF FIELD PEA (PISUM SATIVUML.) · 2012

    Same direction

  3. positive
    Pea treated with 100% RDF plus Rhizobium (treatment 8) had high plant height (50.65cm).

    Influence of Biofertilizers on Plant Growth and Seed Yield of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) · 2017

    Same direction

  4. positive
    Dual inoculation increased pea plant height at 60 and 120 days by 19.4 and 13.1, respectively.

    Influence of Dual Inoculation of AM Fungi and Rhizobium on Growth Indices, Production Economics, and Nutrient Use Efficiencies in Garden Pea (Pisum sativumL.) · 2016

    Same direction

  5. positive
    Rhizobium abolished nitrate-related limitation of pea root foraging and branching.

    Pisum sativum Response to Nitrate as Affected by Rhizobium leguminosarum-Derived Signals · 2022

    Same direction

  6. positive
    Rhizobium sp. inoculation increased plant growth.

    Biocontrol of wilt disease complex of pea usingPseudomonas fluorescensandRhizobiumsp. · 2012

    Same direction

  7. positive
    Rhizobium+PSB+FYM gave the best plant height, 77.66 cm.

    Effect of Organic Manures and Biofertilizers on Growth, Yield and Quality of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) · 2022 · compared with seventeen treatment combinations

    Same direction

  8. positive
    Rhizobium inoculation with 35 Kg N/fed. improved pea germination and sprout length relative to inoculation with other nitrogen levels.

    Response of Pea Plant (Pisum sativum L.) for Levels of Nitrogen, Rhizobium Inoculation and Spraying of Molybdenum on Growth, Green Pods, Dry Seed Yield and its Components · 2016 · compared with other two N fertilization levels(20 and 50 kg N/fed)

    Same direction

13 papers more in this group

See all 22 papers →

fertilization · growth · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

97 papers: 86 positive, 11 negative or no effect

85 papers in the same direction as this claim · 11 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
    Fertilizer N below 40 kg N ha -1 had no significant effect on biomass N at flatpod.

    Inoculant formulation and fertilizer nitrogen effects on field pea: Nodulation, N2 fixation and nitrogen partitioning · 2004

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    Spent mushroom compost produced poor seed germination.

    Organic waste compost and spent mushroom compost as potential growing media components for the sustainable production of microgreens · 2023

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    NaCl reduced pea growth under semi-controlled conditions.

    Growth, ion composition, and stomatal conductance of peas exposed to salinity · 2010

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    Side-banded phosphorus fertilizer reduced seedling emergence at three weeks.

    Field pea response to seeding depth and P fertilization · 2001

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Pea, faba bean, lentil and chickpea were the least responsive to starter fertilizer in 30-day biomass, with no benefit above 10 kg N per ha.

    Effect of starter fertilizer in seed-row on emergence, biomass and nutrient uptake by six pulse crops grown under controlled environment conditions · 2020

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Some pea varieties maintained similar biomass with and without phosphorus fertilizer.

    Harnessing Phosphorous (P) Fertilizer-Insensitive Bacteria to Enhance Rhizosphere P Bioavailability in Legumes · 2024 · compared with without P fertilization

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Increasing nitrogen doses did not significantly increase vegetative biomass in all cases.

    Interaction between Nutrition and Herbicide Application in Pea Culture · 2009

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Nitrogen fixation per unit pea dry matter was unaffected by fertilisation.

    A low nitrogen fertiliser rate in oat–pea intercrops does not impair N 2 fixation · 2021 · compared with unfertilised control

    Opposite direction

88 papers more in this group

See all 97 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.