Paper · 2007 · Egyptian Journal of Biotechnology

Assessment of multi-strain PGPRs biofertilization as compared to sole-strain or mineral n-fertilization on wheat plants grown in clayey soil in Egypt

G A Mekhemar; F Sh Badawi; T E Radwan; et al.

7
claims
13
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

A field experiment was performed at Malawi Station, Agric. Res. Center (ARC), Minia, Egypt during 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 winter seasons, to investigate the response of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Sids 1, grown in clayey soil to inoculation with plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) such as cyanobacteria spp; Serratia sp; Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viciae and Bacillus polymyxa either solely or in combinations in comparison to mineral N-fertilization, Full N-dose; 75 Kg N/fed. Results revealed the superiority of Bacillus polymyxa for increasing wheat growth and productivity followed by Serratia, Cyanobacteria, and Rhizobium inoculation. Concerning combined inoculations, tetras combination treatment caused the highest increases in wheat parameters, triple combinations were the second, dual combinations were the third and the sole inoculation caused lower increases but still higher than control treatment. On the other hand, full dose of N-fertilizers recorded increases ranged between those of tetras and those of triple combinations. Also, results confirmed the necessity of combined applications with N2-fixers and its superiority on mineral N-fertilizations for wheat productivity.Egyptian Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 25 (1) 2007: pp. 27-44

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacillus polymyxa ranked highest for wheat growth and productivity among individual inoculants.

Taxon
bread wheatTriticum aestivume1
Material
Sids 1e1
Treatment
Bacillus polymyxae0
Interactor
Bacillus polymyxaPaenibacillus polymyxae0symbiont
Outcome
wheat growth and productivitye0
Direction
superioritye0
Comparator
Serratia, Cyanobacteria, and Rhizobiume0

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 ↗
Paenibacillus polymyxa
Paenibacillus polymyxa · InteractorDr. W.A. Clark · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“superiority of Bacillus polymyxa for increasing wheat growth and productivity followed by Serratia, Cyanobacteria, and Rhizobium inoculation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 521–661 · show in text ↑
e1

“bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Sids 1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 169–214 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Four-strain combinations produced the highest increases in wheat parameters.

Taxon
bread wheatTriticum aestivume1
Treatment
tetras combination treatmente0
Outcome
wheat parameterse0
Direction
highest increasese0
Comparator
triple combinationse0

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

“tetras combination treatment caused the highest increases in wheat parameters, triple combinations were the second, dual combinations were the third and the sole inoculation caused lower increases but still higher than control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 697–933 · show in text ↑
e1

“bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Sids 1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 169–214 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Triple inoculant combinations ranked second for wheat parameters.

Taxon
bread wheatTriticum aestivume1
Treatment
triple combinationse0
Outcome
the seconde0
Direction
the seconde0

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

“triple combinations were the second, dual combinations were the third”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 776–845 · show in text ↑
e1

“bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Sids 1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 169–214 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dual inoculant combinations ranked third for wheat parameters.

Taxon
bread wheatTriticum aestivume1
Treatment
dual combinationse0
Outcome
the thirde0
Direction
the thirde0

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

“dual combinations were the third and the sole inoculation caused lower increases but still higher than control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 813–933 · show in text ↑
e1

“bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Sids 1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 169–214 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sole inoculation increased wheat parameters above the control but less than combinations.

Taxon
bread wheatTriticum aestivume1
Treatment
sole inoculatione0
Outcome
increasese0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
control treatmente0

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

“the sole inoculation caused lower increases but still higher than control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 850–933 · show in text ↑
e1

“bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Sids 1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 169–214 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Full mineral nitrogen had an intermediate wheat response between four-strain and triple-strain combinations.

Taxon
bread wheatTriticum aestivume1
Treatment
full dose of N-fertilizerse0
Outcome
increasese0
Direction
ranged betweene0
Comparator
tetras and those of triple combinationse0

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

“full dose of N-fertilizers recorded increases ranged between those of tetras and those of triple combinations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 954–1063 · show in text ↑
e1

“bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Sids 1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 169–214 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors conclude that combined N2-fixer application is needed and superior to mineral nitrogen for wheat productivity.

Outcome
combined applications with N2-fixerse0

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

“results confirmed the necessity of combined applications with N2-fixers and its superiority on mineral N-fertilizations for wheat productivity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1071–1213 · show in text ↑

Paenibacillus polymyxa · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.