Abstract
SUMMARY Findings from multi-year, multi-site field trial experiments measuring maize yield response to inoculation with the phosphorus-solubilizing fungus, Penicillium bilaiae Chalabuda are presented. The main objective was to evaluate representative data on crop response to the inoculant across a broad set of different soil, agronomic management and climate conditions. A statistical analysis of crop yield response and its variability was conducted to guide further implementation of a stratified trial and sampling plan. Field trials, analysed in the present study, were conducted across the major maize producing agricultural cropland of the United States (2005–11) comprising 92 small (with sampling replication) and 369 large (without replication) trials. The multi-plot design enabled both a determination of how sampling area affects the estimation of maize yield and yield variance and an estimation of the ability of inoculation with P. bilaiae to increase maize yield. Inoculation increased maize yield in 66 of the 92 small and 295 of the 369 large field trials (within the small plots, yield increased significantly at the 95% confidence level, by 0·17 ± 0·044 t/ha or 1·8%, while in the larger plots, yield increases were higher and less variable (i.e., 0·33 ± 0·026 t/ha or 3·5%). There was considerable inter-annual variability in maize yield response attributed to inoculation compared to the un-inoculated control, with yield increases varying from 0·7 ± 0·75 up to 3·7 ± 0·73%. No significant correlation between yield response and soil acidity (i.e., pH) was detected, and it appears that pH reduction (through organic acid or proton efflux) was unlikely to be the primary pathway for better phosphorus availability measured as increased yield. Seed treatment and granular or dribble band formulations of the inoculant were found to be equally effective. Inoculation was most effective at increasing maize yield in fields that had low or very low soil phosphorus status for both small and large plots. At higher levels of soil phosphorus, yield in the large plots increased more with inoculation than in the small plots, which could be explained by phosphorus fertilization histories for the different field locations, as well as transient (e.g., rainfall) and topographic effects.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation increased maize yield in 66 of 92 small field trials.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Inoculation increased maize yield in 66 of the 92 small”
e1“Inoculation increased maize yield in 66 of the 92 small and 295 of the 369 large field trials”
e2“inoculation compared to the un-inoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation increased maize yield in 295 of 369 large field trials.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“295 of the 369 large field trials”
e1“Inoculation increased maize yield in 66 of the 92 small and 295 of the 369 large field trials”
e2“inoculation compared to the un-inoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
In small plots, inoculation significantly raised maize yield by 0·17 ± 0·044 t/ha or 1·8%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“within the small plots, yield increased significantly at the 95% confidence level, by 0·17 ± 0·044 t/ha or 1·8%”
e1“Inoculation increased maize yield in 66 of the 92 small and 295 of the 369 large field trials”
e2“inoculation compared to the un-inoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
In large plots, inoculation raised maize yield by 0·33 ± 0·026 t/ha or 3·5%, with a less variable response.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the larger plots, yield increases were higher and less variable (i.e., 0·33 ± 0·026 t/ha or 3·5%)”
e1“Inoculation increased maize yield in 66 of the 92 small and 295 of the 369 large field trials”
e2“inoculation compared to the un-inoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield response to inoculation varied across years, with increases from 0·7 ± 0·75 to 3·7 ± 0·73%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was considerable inter-annual variability in maize yield response attributed to inoculation compared to the un-inoculated control, with yield increases varying from 0·7 ± 0·75 up to 3·7 ± 0·73%”
e1“Inoculation increased maize yield in 66 of the 92 small and 295 of the 369 large field trials”
e2“inoculation compared to the un-inoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield response was not significantly correlated with soil pH.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No significant correlation between yield response and soil acidity (i.e., pH) was detected”
e1“Inoculation increased maize yield in 66 of the 92 small and 295 of the 369 large field trials”
e2“inoculation compared to the un-inoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed treatment and granular or dribble band inoculant formulations were equally effective.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seed treatment and granular or dribble band formulations of the inoculant were found to be equally effective”
e1“Inoculation increased maize yield in 66 of the 92 small and 295 of the 369 large field trials”
e2“inoculation compared to the un-inoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation increased maize yield most effectively in fields with low or very low soil phosphorus.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Inoculation was most effective at increasing maize yield in fields that had low or very low soil phosphorus status for both small and large plots”
e1“Inoculation increased maize yield in 66 of the 92 small and 295 of the 369 large field trials”
e2“inoculation compared to the un-inoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
At higher soil phosphorus, inoculation increased yield more in large than small plots.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At higher levels of soil phosphorus, yield in the large plots increased more with inoculation than in the small plots”
e1“Inoculation increased maize yield in 66 of the 92 small and 295 of the 369 large field trials”
e2“inoculation compared to the un-inoculated control”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
478 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
534 papers more in this group
See all 538 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.