Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Cotton seedling mortality differed significantly among inoculant treatments at 120 days after sowing, especially with compost tea of Azotobacter and Anabaena–Trichoderma biofilm.

A claim from Microbial Inoculants with Multifaceted Traits Suppress Rhizoctonia Populations and Promote Plant Growth in Cotton · 2016

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton seedling mortality differed significantly among inoculant treatments at 120 days after sowing, especially with compost tea of Azotobacter and Anabaena–Trichoderma biofilm.

Treatment
drenching with compost tea of Azotobacter sp. and Anabaena torulosa—Trichoderma viride‐ biofilmed formulationse0
Interactor
Azotobacter sp.Azotobactere0symbiont
Outcome
Per cent mortalitye0
Value
16 to 32e0
Qualifier
120 DASe0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingDirection

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · 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

“Per cent mortality ranged from 16 to 32 (60–120 days after sowing, DAS ) and significant differences were recorded at 120 DAS , especially after drenching with compost tea of Azotobacter sp. and Anabaena torulosa—Trichoderma viride‐ biofilmed formulations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 138–393
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–113

Title

Microbial Inoculants with Multifaceted Traits Suppress Rhizoctonia Populations and Promote Plant Growth in Cotton

Radha Prasanna; Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan; Kunal Ranjan; et al. Journal of Phytopathology 2016. doi:10.1111/jph.12524

Other claims from this paper (7)

Record rev-e79b2cc27704d21aaff2e6e723756ecefec3669c002c3391f2eb6e547aff6962 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

Trichoderma · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)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 →

Anabaena · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)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 →

fertilization · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

20 papers: 15 positive, 5 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this claim · 5 in the opposite direction

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

11 papers more in this group

See all 20 papers →

3 of 4 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.