Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Neither inoculum changed shoot and root dry matter accumulation.

A claim from Endophytic bacteria affect sugarcane physiology without changing plant growth · 2015

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neither inoculum changed shoot and root dry matter accumulation.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
inoculae0
Outcome
shoot and root dry matter accumulatione0
Direction
did not affecte0
Comparator
control conditione0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

Verbatim

e0

“The inocula did not affect shoot and root dry matter accumulation as compared to the control condition (plants with native endophytic bacteria)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 365–508
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–36

Title

Endophytic bacteria affect sugarcane physiology without changing plant growth

Fernanda Castro Correia Marcos; Raquel de Paula Freitas Iório; Adriana Parada Dias da Silveira; et al. Bragantia 2015. doi:10.1590/1678-4499.256

Other claims from this paper (7)

Record rev-eab4851f81baebd781efadd25497b6102afcef1628c8df965f4c12a18f465986 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

inoculation · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

50 papers: 47 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this claim · 47 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    H15 inoculation increased cane yield by 40% over control.

    PLANT GROWTH-PROMOTING BACTERIAL ENDOPHYTES FROM SUGARCANE AND THEIR POTENTIAL IN PROMOTING GROWTH OF THE HOST UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS · 2012 · compared with control

    Opposite directionCited by this paper

  2. positive
    Inoculation with B. subtilis + P. fluorescens at 135 kg ha-1 P2O5 gave the maximum stalk yield of sugarcane.

    Inoculation With Growth-Promoting Bacteria Associated With the Reduction of Phosphate Fertilization in Sugarcane · 2020

    Opposite direction

  3. positive
    Bacterial inoculation increased RB72454 stalk yield similarly to nitrogen fertilization in plant-cane and first ratoon harvests.

    Inoculation of sugarcane with diazotrophic bacteria · 2014 · compared with fertilization with 120 kg ha-1 N

    Opposite direction

  4. positive
    Inoculation increased stem yield of RB867515 at Sapucaia by 22.3 Mg ha−1 compared with the control.

    Yield of sugarcane varieties and their sugar quality grown in different soil types and inoculated with a diazotrophic bacteria consortium · 2017 · compared with control

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    Bio-fertilizer increased sugarcane yield by 3-12% versus compound fertilizer.

    Bio-fertilizer Affects Structural Dynamics, Function, and Network Patterns of the Sugarcane Rhizospheric Microbiota · 2021 · compared with CF treatment group

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    Integrated consortium and NPK positively affected growth, yield, nutrient uptake, and sugar yield.

    Soil quality parameters vis-a-vis growth and yield attributes of sugarcane as influenced by integration of microbial consortium with NPK fertilizers · 2020

    Opposite direction

  7. positive
    A. brasilense and Pseudomonas fluorescens co-inoculation at 135 kg ha−1 P2O5 increased stem productivity by 42%.

    Technological Quality of Sugarcane Inoculated with Plant-Growth-Promoting Bacteria and Residual Effect of Phosphorus Rates · 2023

    Opposite direction

  8. positive
    PK biofertilizer with nitrogen-enriched compost improved sugarcane height and yield.

    Rock biofertilizer and earthworm compost on sugarcane performance and soil attributes in two consecutive years · 2015

    Opposite direction

41 papers more in this group

See all 50 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.