Paper · 2012 · Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science

Evaluation of symbiotic effectiveness and size of residentRhizobium leguminosarumvar.viciaenodulating lentil (Lens culinarismedic) in some Ethiopian soils

Anteneh Argaw

11
claims
26
verbatim quotes
12
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract This study was initiated to isolate, characterize and select symbiotically effective rhizobia nodulating lentil (Lens culinaris medic) and to enumerate indigenous rhizobia nodulating lentil in some Ethiopian soils. More than 84 nodule and soil samples were collected. In sand culture, only 62 isolates were authenticated as rhizobia nodulating lentil. Analyses of variance indicated that most of the parameters measured were significantly (p < 0.05) improved by inoculation, with the exception of root length. Inoculation increased shoot length, shoot dry weight and plant total nitrogen by 82.3, 196 and 452%, respectively, over negative control (without inoculation and N fertilization). The tested isolates were found to be very effective (20.9%) and effective (77.4%), with only one ineffective isolate. Indigenous rhizobia in the investigated soils ranged from 30 to 5.8 × 103 cell g−1 dry soil. A pot experiment with selected rhizobia and nitrogen fertilizer on Chefedonsa and Debrezeit soils did not show any significant difference in shoot dry weight at p < 0.05. From the study, it was observed that most Ethiopian soils were inhabited by a moderate to high number of indigenous rhizobia and rhizobia inoculation did not improve lentil productivity in the investigated soils. Keywords: ChefedonsaDebrezeitindigenous rhizobialentil (Lens culinaris Medic)symbiotic effectiveness Acknowledgements The financial assistance provided by the Ministry of Sciences and Technology, Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, is gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks are also expressed to Mulualem Shumet and Genet Moges for their excellent assistance in the laboratory and greenhouse works.

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 11

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Only 62 isolates were authenticated as lentil-nodulating rhizobia in sand culture.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarise0
Interactor
rhizobiae0symbiont
Outcome
isolates were authenticated as rhizobia nodulating lentile0
Value
62e0

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In sand culture, only 62 isolates were authenticated as rhizobia nodulating lentil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 277–359 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation increased shoot length by 82.3% over the negative control.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarist0
Treatment
Inoculatione0
Interactor
rhizobiae2symbiont
Outcome
shoot lengthe0
Direction
increasede0
Value
82.3e0
Comparator
negative controle0

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Inoculation increased shoot length, shoot dry weight and plant total nitrogen by 82.3, 196 and 452%, respectively, over negative control (without inoculation and N fertilization)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–697 · show in text ↑
e1

“Analyses of variance indicated that most of the parameters measured were significantly (p < 0.05) improved by inoculation, with the exception of root length”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 361–517 · show in text ↑
e2

“rhizobia nodulating lentil (Lens culinaris medic)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 94–143 · show in text ↑
t0

“lentil (Lens culinarismedic)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 102–130 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation increased shoot dry weight by 196% over the negative control.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarist0
Treatment
Inoculatione0
Interactor
rhizobiae2symbiont
Outcome
shoot dry weighte0
Direction
increasede0
Value
196e0
Comparator
negative controle0

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Inoculation increased shoot length, shoot dry weight and plant total nitrogen by 82.3, 196 and 452%, respectively, over negative control (without inoculation and N fertilization)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–697 · show in text ↑
e1

“Analyses of variance indicated that most of the parameters measured were significantly (p < 0.05) improved by inoculation, with the exception of root length”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 361–517 · show in text ↑
e2

“rhizobia nodulating lentil (Lens culinaris medic)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 94–143 · show in text ↑
t0

“lentil (Lens culinarismedic)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 102–130 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation increased plant total nitrogen by 452% over the negative control.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarist0
Treatment
Inoculatione0
Interactor
rhizobiae2symbiont
Outcome
plant total nitrogene0
Direction
increasede0
Value
452%e0
Comparator
negative controle0

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Inoculation increased shoot length, shoot dry weight and plant total nitrogen by 82.3, 196 and 452%, respectively, over negative control (without inoculation and N fertilization)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–697 · show in text ↑
e1

“Analyses of variance indicated that most of the parameters measured were significantly (p < 0.05) improved by inoculation, with the exception of root length”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 361–517 · show in text ↑
e2

“rhizobia nodulating lentil (Lens culinaris medic)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 94–143 · show in text ↑
t0

“lentil (Lens culinarismedic)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 102–130 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Root length was an exception to the significant improvement with inoculation.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarise1
Treatment
inoculatione0
Interactor
rhizobiae1symbiont
Outcome
root lengthe0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“most of the parameters measured were significantly (p < 0.05) improved by inoculation, with the exception of root length”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 397–517 · show in text ↑
e1

“rhizobia nodulating lentil (Lens culinaris medic)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 94–143 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The isolates were classified as very effective at 20.9%.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarise1
Interactor
rhizobiae1symbiont
Outcome
very effectivee0
Value
20.9%e0

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The tested isolates were found to be very effective (20.9%) and effective (77.4%), with only one ineffective isolate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–815 · show in text ↑
e1

“rhizobia nodulating lentil (Lens culinaris medic)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 94–143 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The isolates were classified as effective at 77.4%.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarise1
Interactor
rhizobiae1symbiont
Outcome
effectivee0
Value
77.4%e0

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The tested isolates were found to be very effective (20.9%) and effective (77.4%), with only one ineffective isolate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–815 · show in text ↑
e1

“rhizobia nodulating lentil (Lens culinaris medic)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 94–143 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

One isolate was ineffective.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarise1
Interactor
rhizobiae1symbiont
Outcome
ineffective isolatee0
Value
onee0

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“with only one ineffective isolate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 782–815 · show in text ↑
e1

“rhizobia nodulating lentil (Lens culinaris medic)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 94–143 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Indigenous rhizobia ranged from 30 to 5.8 × 103 cells per gram dry soil.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarise1
Interactor
rhizobiae0symbiont
Outcome
Indigenous rhizobia in the investigated soilse0
Value
30 to 5.8 × 103 cell g−1 dry soile0

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Indigenous rhizobia in the investigated soils ranged from 30 to 5.8 × 103 cell g−1 dry soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 817–908 · show in text ↑
e1

“rhizobia nodulating lentil (Lens culinaris medic)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 94–143 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The pot experiment found no significant shoot dry weight difference among selected rhizobia and nitrogen fertilizer treatments.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarise1
Treatment
selected rhizobia and nitrogen fertilizere0
Interactor
rhizobiae0symbiont
Outcome
shoot dry weighte0
Direction
did not show any significant differencee0
Setting
Chefedonsa and Debrezeit soilse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A pot experiment with selected rhizobia and nitrogen fertilizer on Chefedonsa and Debrezeit soils did not show any significant difference in shoot dry weight at p < 0.05”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 910–1079 · show in text ↑
e1

“rhizobia nodulating lentil (Lens culinaris medic)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 94–143 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors concluded rhizobia inoculation did not improve lentil productivity in investigated soils.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarise0
Interactor
rhizobiae0symbiont
Outcome
lentil productivitye0
Direction
did not improvee0

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“rhizobia inoculation did not improve lentil productivity in the investigated soils”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1210–1292 · show in text ↑

inoculation · nutrient: content · Lens culinaris (lentil)Positive and negative results

20 papers: 19 positive, 1 negative or no effect

18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 papers →

fertilization · growth · Lens culinaris (lentil)Positive and negative results

26 papers: 24 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

22 papers more in this group

See all 26 papers →

inoculation · growth · Lens culinaris (lentil)Positive and negative results

36 papers: 31 positive, 5 negative or no effect

30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

32 papers more in this group

See all 36 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.