Paper · 2012 · Australian Journal of Crop Science

A comparison between foliar application and seed inoculation of biofertilizers on canola (Brassica napus L.) grown under waterlogged conditions.

Farhad Habibzadeh; Ali Sorooshzadeh; Hemmatollah Pirdashti; et al.

5
claims
11
verbatim quotes
11
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Waterlogging restricts canola growth via different physiological changes. The objective of this work was to compare the effects of the foliar and seed application of two biofertilizers on some physiological and morphological responses in canola plants (Brassica napus L. cv. Hayola 401) under waterlogging stress conditions. Plants at 5-leaf stage were exposed to flooding conditions for two weeks. Two biofertilizers; AAP (Azotobacter chroococcum, Azospirillum spp. and Pseudomonas spp.) and APB (Azospirillum spp., Pseudomonas fluorescens and Basillus subtilis) were applied by seed inoculation or foliar spray at different times i.e. before waterlogging, after waterlogging and, before and after waterlogging. The results showed that the flooding stress significantly decreased the dry weight and length of the shoots and roots. The activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and peroxidase (POX) were reduced, whereas lipid peroxidation and ethylene production in the leaves were increased under waterlogging stress. The adverse effects of the flooding stress were significantly alleviated by the seed inoculation and foliar application once (before the stress) of both biofertilizers compared to the waterlogged control. However, among two methods, inoculating the seeds with the biofertilizers is cost efficient and advisable to alleviate waterlogging damage in canola.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Waterlogging stress significantly decreased dry weight and length of canola shoots and roots.

Material
Hayola 401e0
Treatment
flooding stresse1
Outcome
dry weight and length of the shoots and rootse1
Direction
decreasede1

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“canola plants (Brassica napus L. cv. Hayola 401)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 238–286 · show in text ↑
e1

“the flooding stress significantly decreased the dry weight and length of the shoots and roots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 737–830 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Waterlogging stress reduced the activity of superoxide dismutase, catalase and peroxidase in canola leaves.

Material
Hayola 401e0
Treatment
waterlogging stresse3
Outcome
activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and peroxidase (POX)e2
Direction
reducede2

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“canola plants (Brassica napus L. cv. Hayola 401)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 238–286 · show in text ↑
e2

“The activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and peroxidase (POX) were reduced”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 832–925 · show in text ↑
e3

“lipid peroxidation and ethylene production in the leaves were increased under waterlogging stress”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 935–1032 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Waterlogging stress increased lipid peroxidation and ethylene production in canola leaves.

Material
Hayola 401e0
Organ / stage
leavese3
Treatment
waterlogging stresse3
Outcome
lipid peroxidation and ethylene productione3
Direction
increasede3

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“canola plants (Brassica napus L. cv. Hayola 401)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 238–286 · show in text ↑
e3

“lipid peroxidation and ethylene production in the leaves were increased under waterlogging stress”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 935–1032 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed inoculation and foliar application of the biofertilizers significantly alleviated the adverse effects of flooding on canola compared with the waterlogged control.

Treatment
seed inoculation and foliar applicatione4
Interactor
Azospirillum spp.Azospirillume5symbiont
Outcome
adverse effects of the flooding stresse4
Direction
alleviatede4
Comparator
waterlogged controle4

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Azospirillum
Azospirillum · InteractorFadelblaid · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“canola plants (Brassica napus L. cv. Hayola 401)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 238–286 · show in text ↑
e4

“The adverse effects of the flooding stress were significantly alleviated by the seed inoculation and foliar application once (before the stress) of both biofertilizers compared to the waterlogged control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1034–1237 · show in text ↑
e5

“AAP (Azotobacter chroococcum, Azospirillum spp. and Pseudomonas spp.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 419–488 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculating canola seeds with the biofertilizers is cost efficient and advisable to alleviate waterlogging damage.

Outcome
alleviate waterlogging damage in canolae6

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e6

“inoculating the seeds with the biofertilizers is cost efficient and advisable to alleviate waterlogging damage in canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1267–1387 · show in text ↑

flooding · physiology: oxidative · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 1 positive, 4 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

flooding · physiology: antioxidant enzymes · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 1 positive, 6 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

flooding · growth · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

30 papers: 6 positive, 24 negative or no effect

23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

26 papers more in this group

See all 30 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.