Intervention effectmodel-written summary

The integrated RDF, vermicompost, Azotobacter and PSB treatment produced maximum gross income in both seasons.

A claim from Effect of organic manures and microbial inoculants superimposed over inorganic fertilizers on production and profitability of wheat (Triticum aestivum) · 2015

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The integrated RDF, vermicompost, Azotobacter and PSB treatment produced maximum gross income in both seasons.

Taxon
wheat (Triticum aestivum)Triticum aestivumt0
Treatment
recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) + vermicompost 5 t ha-1 + Azotobacter and PSB as seed treatment and spraying at I and II irrigatione0
Outcome
gross incomee0
Direction
maximume0
Value
87443 and97127 ha-1e0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingQualifier

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Plots receiving recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) + vermicompost 5 t ha-1 + Azotobacter and PSB as seed treatment and spraying at I and II irrigation recorded maximum grain yield (5.67 and 5.73 tha-1), straw yield (7.29 and 8.87t ha-1), gross income (87443 and97127 ha-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 900–1174
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 126–151

Title

Effect of organic manures and microbial inoculants superimposed over inorganic fertilizers on production and profitability of wheat (Triticum aestivum)

VK Verma; Vishram Singh; Sanjay Chaudhary; et al. Current Advances in Agricultural Sciences(An International Journal) 2015. doi:10.5958/2394-4471.2015.00032.5

Other claims from this paper (5)

Record rev-e97702fd59734e6cf62f48e233b9fb3fe7d9af0039354a2301d10e0679691a08 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 5 in the model’s answer

Azotobacter · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

88 papers: 87 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
    That FYM, Azotobacter and cowpea treatment reduced wheat yield.

    EFFECT OF FERTILIZER AND MANURE APPLICATION ON SOIL ORGANIC CARBON SEQUESTRATION, SOIL FERTILITY AND YIELD SUSTAINABILITY UNDER MAIZE-WHEAT CROPPING SYSTEM IN SUBTROPICAL MOLLISOLS · 2020

    Opposite direction

  2. positive
    Azotobacter with nano Zn-Fe oxide increased grain yield by 88% compared with control under severe water limitation.

    Effects of Biofertilizers and Nano Zinc-Iron Oxide on Yield and Physicochemical Properties of Wheat under Water Deficit Conditions · 2020 · compared with control

    Same direction

  3. positive
    Humic plus 192 kg N with amino acids and Azotobacter+yeast gave the highest flag leaf area, total dry weight and tiller number.

    Nitrogen use Rationalization and Boosting Wheat Productivity by Applying Packages of Humic, Amino Acids, and Microorganisms · 2020

    Same direction

  4. positive
    T10 produced the highest wheat grain yield among the treatments.

    Integrated Nutrient Management for Improving, Fertilizer Use Efficiency, Soil Biodiversity and Productivity of Wheat in Irrigated Rice Wheat Cropping System in Indo-Gangatic Plains of India · 2017 · compared with other treatments

    Same direction

  5. positive
    Azotobacter inoculation increased wheat grain yield by 16.5%–19.42% over non-inoculated treatments.

    Comparative study of Azotobacter with or without other fertilizers on growth and yield of wheat in Western hills of Nepal · 2018 · compared with non inoculated treatments

    Same direction

  6. positive
    Residual integrated nitrogen, manure, and Azotobacter increased wheat yield attributes and grain yield.

    Productivity and Sustainability of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)–Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Cropping System as Influenced by Prilled Urea, Farmyard Manure and Azotobacter · 2004

    Same direction

  7. positive
    The 150 kg Nlha plus FYM plus Azotobacter treatment increased wheat growth, nutrient uptake, available N and grain and straw yields significantly.

    Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity of wheat (Triticum aestivum) under limited and adequate irrigation supplies · 2001

    Same direction

  8. positive
    Single or combined Azotobacter and mycorrhiza inoculation significantly increased spikes per square meter of wheat compared with no inoculation.

    Response of Winter Wheat to Co-Inoculation with Azotobacter and Arbescular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) under Different Sources of Nitrogen Fertilizer · 2010 · compared with without inoculation treatment

    Same direction

79 papers more in this group

See all 88 papers →

seed treatment · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

301 papers: 270 positive, 31 negative or no effect

269 papers in the same direction as this claim · 31 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
    Hydropriming grain yield was statistically similar to pregerminated seed yield.

    Hydro-Priming of Seed Improves the Water Use Efficiency, Grain Yield and Net Economic Return of Wheat under Different Moisture Regimes · 2014 · compared with Pregerminated seed

    Opposite direction

  2. no effect
    Primed plants showed no yield penalty relative to controls.

    Heritable priming by Trichoderma: A sustainable approach for wheat protection against Bipolaris sorokiniana · 2022 · compared with control

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    Priming did not alleviate grain yield reduction.

    Drought priming effects on alleviating the photosynthetic limitations of wheat cultivars (Triticum aestivum L.) with contrasting tolerance to abiotic stresses · 2020

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Seed priming had a non-significant effect on spike length, spike m-2 and days to maturity of wheat.

    SEED PRIMING AND PHOSPHORUS APPLICATION ENHANCE PHENOLOGY AND DRY MATTER PRODUCTION OF WHEAT · 2010 · compared with Unprimed treatment

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Seed treatments did not significantly affect grain yield in seedlots with 25 to 35% infection.

    Effect of fungicidal seed treatments on the emergence, development, and grain yield of Fusarium graminearum-infected wheat and barley seed under field conditions · 2010

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Seed treatment did not change wheat productivity parameters.

    Seaweed Extract Provides Development And Production Of Wheat · 2014

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Triacontanol priming did not mitigate salt stress or significantly improve wheat growth, yield, and physiological and biochemical traits.

    Is pre-sowing seed treatment with triacontanol effective in improving some physiological and biochemical attributes of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under salt stress? · 2012

    Opposite direction

  8. negative
    The 100%-infested seed treatment reduced yield by up to 20% in two of three years.

    Role of spring wheat seed infested with Fusarium graminearum in spread and development of fusarium head blight and effects on agronomic performance · 2003

    Opposite direction

292 papers more in this group

See all 301 papers →

application · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

877 papers: 795 positive, 82 negative or no effect

794 papers in the same direction as this claim · 75 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
    Foliar N applications showed no consistent increase or decrease in grain yield, straw yield or straw N.

    Influence of Late‐Season Foliar Nitrogen Applications on Yield and Grain Nitrogen in Winter Wheat · 2002

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    Boot-stage foliar N significantly reduced grain yield of hard red spring wheat by 5%.

    Foliar Nitrogen Application Timing Influence on Grain Yield and Protein Concentration of Hard Red Winter and Spring Wheat · 2003

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    soil application of Fe-EDDHA did not significantly affect wheat dry matter yield.

    Interaction of Iron with Copper, Zinc, and Manganese in Wheat as Affected by Iron and Manganese in a Calcareous Soil · 2008

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    One and two fungicide sprays did not differ significantly in increasing wheat grain yield.

    Reduction of Winter Wheat Yield Losses Caused by Stripe Rust through Fungicide Management · 2016 · compared with One

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    Boot stage foliar nitrogen reduced spring wheat grain yield by 5%.

    Foliar Nitrogen Application Timing Influence on Grain Yield and Protein Concentration of Hard Red Winter and Spring Wheat · 2003

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Foliar Zn had no significant effect on wheat grain yield.

    Foliar zinc fertilization improves the zinc nutritional value of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grain · 2011

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Nano-N plus nano-Zn with 75% conventional N gave wheat and maize grain yield at par with full conventional fertilizer.

    Changes in microbial community structure and yield responses with the use of nano-fertilizers of nitrogen and zinc in wheat–maize system · 2024 · compared with N 100 PK

    Opposite direction

  8. negative
    Starting sprays eight weeks after emergence increased yield losses versus starting at emergence.

    Role of winter-active aphids spreading Barley yellow dwarf virus in decreasing wheat yields in a Mediterranean-type environment · 2005 · compared with regular applications started at emergence

    Opposite direction

868 papers more in this group

See all 877 papers →

3 of 5 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.