Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Co-inoculation with endophytic bacteria increased chickpea nodule number by 4.7 to 81.8 per cent over Mesorhizobium sp. alone.

A claim from Co-inoculation Effect of Endophytic Bacteria with Mesorhizobium sp. in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) on Nodulation, Yields, Nutrient Uptake and Soil Biological Properties · 2015

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Co-inoculation with endophytic bacteria increased chickpea nodule number by 4.7 to 81.8 per cent over Mesorhizobium sp. alone.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
Combined use of Mesorhizobium sp. with different endophytic bacteriae3
Interactor
Mesorhizobium sp.Mesorhizobiume3symbiont
Second interactor
endophytic bacteriae3symbiont
Outcome
nodule numbere3
Direction
increasede3
Value
4.7 to 81.8 per cente3
Comparator
Mesorhizobium sp. alonee3

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSettingQualifier

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

Verbatim

e0

“Performance of 10 different endophytic bacteria on the root nodulation, growth and yields of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–101
e3

“Combined use of Mesorhizobium sp. with different endophytic bacteria further increased the nodule number by 4.7 to 81.8 per cent, nodule dry weight by 2.3 to 69.3 per cent, and plant dry weight by 2.4 to 66.5 per cent, over Mesorhizobium sp. alone inoculation at different crop stages”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 617–901

Title

Co-inoculation Effect of Endophytic Bacteria with Mesorhizobium sp. in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) on Nodulation, Yields, Nutrient Uptake and Soil Biological Properties

Monika Rana; Ramesh Chandra; Navneet Pareek Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science 2015. doi:10.5958/0974-0228.2015.00057.2

Other claims from this paper (13)

Record rev-e58936128b7d5d53b21a521866400267fbdf9130aee8baebcc53c26e1807a452 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

Mesorhizobium · symbiosis · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

22 papers: 22 positive, 0 negative or no effect

21 papers in the same direction as this claim

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

13 papers more in this group

See all 22 papers →

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

114 papers: 110 positive, 4 negative or no effect

109 papers in the same direction as this claim · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

105 papers more in this group

See all 114 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.