Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Integrated nutrient treatment significantly improved dry weight of nodules in greengram.

A claim from Effect of INM on nodulation, yield, quality and available nutrient status in soil after harvest of greengram · 2016

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Integrated nutrient treatment significantly improved dry weight of nodules in greengram.

Treatment
75% RDF + 2.5 t/ha vermicompost + rhizobium + Phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB)e0
Interactor
rhizobiumRhizobiume0symbiont
Second interactor
Phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB)e0symbiont
Outcome
dry weight of nodulese0
Direction
improvemente0
Value
32.89 mg/plante0
Comparator
other combinations and controle0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSettingQualifier

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Rhizobium
Rhizobium · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ninjatacoshell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Among different combinations, significant improvement in number of nodules/plant (80.97), dry weight of nodules (32.89 mg/plant), yield attributes, seed yield (12.34 qt/ha), harvest index (28.32%), nutrient content, available NPK and organic carbon after harvest in soil were recorded with application of nutrients through 75% RDF + 2.5 t/ha vermicompost + rhizobium + Phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB) as compared to other combinations and control, but it was at par with 100% RDF + 2.5 t/ha vermicompost and 100% RDF + rhizobium + PSB.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 325–866
t0

“greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–108

Title

Effect of INM on nodulation, yield, quality and available nutrient status in soil after harvest of greengram

Yubaraj Dhakal; Ram Swaroop Meena; Sushil Kumar Legume Research - An International Journal 2016. doi:10.18805/lr.v0iof.9435

Other claims from this paper (8)

Record rev-e9a2eac44b62e8de6ebc66941bd7b06b5b210a1504df35539d0ca4e852d6f3de · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer

inoculation · Rhizobium · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results

27 papers: 25 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

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

18 papers more in this group

See all 27 papers →

phosphorus · Rhizobium · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this claim

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
See all 5 papers →

fertilization · Rhizobium · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree

14 papers: 14 positive, 0 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this claim

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

5 papers more in this group

See all 14 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.