Paper · 2012 · African Journal of Microbiology Research

Response of cowpea lines to low Phosphorus tolerance and response to external application of P

A. K. Saidou,

10
claims
17
verbatim quotes
14
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Low availability of phosphorus (P) is a major constraint to crop production in Sahel and Sudan Savanna of West Africa, and efforts are being made to identify cowpea genotypes with tolerance to low P and greater P use efficiency. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) enhance P uptake in low P soil. Cowpea breeding lines (200) were examined at 3 P levels (0P, 90 kg P ha-1 as Rock Phosphate and 30 kg P ha-1 as Simple Super Phosphate (SSP) in 2002 at Minjibir, Nigeria and Toumnia, Niger. Wide apparent variation in grain and fodder yields was found among the 200 genotypes. Grain yield response to RP and SSP ranged from 1 to 160%. Based on the genotypes performance at low and high (SSP), genotypes were classified. Fifteen genotypes were selected from the different P use and response groups and further examined in the greenhouse and field studies for growth characteristics related to tolerance to low applied P. Phosphorus application significantly (P ≤ 0.05) increased the grain and fodder yield at both locations., shoot-root ratio but decreased AMF colonization of cowpea roots. There were large differences in the relative P used in efficiency and the values ranged from –11 to 38 kg grain (kg P)-1 applied. AMF infection was reduced by at least 50%, while shoot-to-root ratio was significantly increased with P application. Variation between genotypes was significant for certain paired means but not consistent for all parameters measured, and the locations. The cowpea genotypes differ in AMF colonization, shoot growth relative root development, and relative P use efficiency for tolerance to low P soils and response to external application. Key words: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), cowpea genotypes, P-tolerance/response, relative P-use efficiency, shoot, root ratio.

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 10

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 200 genotypes varied widely in grain and fodder yield.

Material
200 genotypese0
Outcome
grain and fodder yieldse0
Direction
Wide apparent variatione0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Wide apparent variation in grain and fodder yields was found among the 200 genotypes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–570 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grain yield response to RP and SSP ranged from 1 to 160%.

Treatment
RP and SSPe0
Outcome
Grain yield responsee0
Value
1 to 160%e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Grain yield response to RP and SSP ranged from 1 to 160%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 572–628 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Phosphorus application significantly increased grain and fodder yields at both locations.

Treatment
Phosphorus applicatione0
Outcome
grain and fodder yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
both locationse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Phosphorus application significantly (P ≤ 0.05) increased the grain and fodder yield at both locations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 915–1017 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Phosphorus application significantly increased shoot-to-root ratio.

Treatment
P applicatione0
Outcome
shoot-to-root ratioe0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“shoot-to-root ratio was significantly increased with P application”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1264–1330 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phosphorus application reduced AMF infection by at least 50%.

Treatment
P applicatione0
Interactor
AMFe0symbiont
Outcome
AMF infectione0
Direction
reducede0
Value
at least 50%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“AMF infection was reduced by at least 50%, while shoot-to-root ratio was significantly increased with P application”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1215–1330 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Relative phosphorus use efficiency ranged from –11 to 38 kg grain per applied phosphorus.

Outcome
relative P used in efficiencye0
Direction
large differencese0
Value
–11 to 38 kg grain (kg P)-1 appliede0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There were large differences in the relative P used in efficiency and the values ranged from –11 to 38 kg grain (kg P)-1 applied”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1085–1213 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Genotype differences were significant for some paired means but inconsistent across parameters and locations.

Outcome
Variation between genotypese0
Qualifier
not consistent for all parameters measured, and the locationse0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Variation between genotypes was significant for certain paired means but not consistent for all parameters measured, and the locations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1332–1466 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cowpea genotypes differed in AMF colonization.

Interactor
AMFe0symbiont
Outcome
AMF colonizatione0
Direction
differe0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The cowpea genotypes differ in AMF colonization, shoot growth relative root development, and relative P use efficiency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1468–1586 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cowpea genotypes differed in shoot growth relative to root development.

Outcome
shoot growth relative root developmente0
Direction
differe0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The cowpea genotypes differ in AMF colonization, shoot growth relative root development, and relative P use efficiency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1468–1586 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cowpea genotypes differed in relative phosphorus use efficiency.

Outcome
relative P use efficiencye0
Direction
differe0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The cowpea genotypes differ in AMF colonization, shoot growth relative root development, and relative P use efficiency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1468–1586 · show in text ↑

phosphorus · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results differ

113 papers: 107 positive, 6 negative or no effect

106 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

109 papers more in this group

See all 113 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.