Paper · 2015 · Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences (JBES)

Assessment of forage corn quality intercropping with green beans under influence of Rhizobium bacteria and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus

Mohammad Sibi; Elham Faryabi; Zahra Marzban

6
claims
17
verbatim quotes
1
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

To assess the quality of forage corn intercropping with green beans under the influence of Rhizobium bacteria and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungus, make a test in educational-research farm of agriculture faulty of Azna PNU that it was design in factorial to randomized complete block with three replications. The experimental factors include cropping systems such as mono cropping of corn, mono cropping of green beans, intercropping, Arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungus (use and non-use) and Rhizobium bacteria (use and non-use). The results showed that cropping systems on crude protein, wet forage weight, dry forage weight were significant at 1% level as well as leaf to stem ratio was significant at 5% level. Between different levels of bacteria used, acid detergent fiber was impressed and was significant at 5% level. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungus was significant at 5% level on water soluble carbohydrate. The results showed that the use of separate and combined of Rhizobium bacteria and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungus increase the quality of corn in intercropping than mono cropping. Finally with increasing of plant diversity and micro-organism in soil increased the quality and quantity of forage. *Corresponding Author: Zahra Marzban  marzban_zahra1986@yahoo.com

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cropping system significantly affected crude protein, wet forage weight and dry forage weight, compared with mono cropping.

Taxon
forage cornt0
Treatment
cropping systemse1
Outcome
crude protein, wet forage weight, dry forage weighte1
Qualifier
at 1% levele1
Comparator
mono croppinge0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

t0

“Assessment of forage corn quality intercropping with green beans”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–64 · show in text ↑
e0

“The experimental factors include cropping systems such as mono cropping of corn, mono cropping of green beans, intercropping, Arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungus (use and non-use) and Rhizobium bacteria (use and non-use)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 306–520 · show in text ↑
e1

“The results showed that cropping systems on crude protein, wet forage weight, dry forage weight were significant at 1% level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 522–646 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cropping system significantly affected leaf to stem ratio, compared with mono cropping.

Taxon
forage cornt0
Treatment
cropping systemse1
Outcome
leaf to stem ratioe2
Qualifier
at 5% levele2
Comparator
mono croppinge0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

t0

“Assessment of forage corn quality intercropping with green beans”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–64 · show in text ↑
e0

“The experimental factors include cropping systems such as mono cropping of corn, mono cropping of green beans, intercropping, Arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungus (use and non-use) and Rhizobium bacteria (use and non-use)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 306–520 · show in text ↑
e1

“The results showed that cropping systems on crude protein, wet forage weight, dry forage weight were significant at 1% level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 522–646 · show in text ↑
e2

“as well as leaf to stem ratio was significant at 5% level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 647–704 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Rhizobium bacteria significantly affected acid detergent fiber.

Taxon
forage cornt0
Treatment
Rhizobium bacteriae0
Interactor
Rhizobium bacteriae0symbiont
Outcome
acid detergent fibere3
Qualifier
at 5% levele3
Comparator
non-usee0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

t0

“Assessment of forage corn quality intercropping with green beans”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–64 · show in text ↑
e0

“The experimental factors include cropping systems such as mono cropping of corn, mono cropping of green beans, intercropping, Arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungus (use and non-use) and Rhizobium bacteria (use and non-use)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 306–520 · show in text ↑
e3

“Between different levels of bacteria used, acid detergent fiber was impressed and was significant at 5% level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 706–815 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus significantly affected water soluble carbohydrate.

Taxon
forage cornt0
Treatment
Arbuscular Mycorrhizal funguse0
Interactor
Arbuscular Mycorrhizal funguse0symbiont
Outcome
water soluble carbohydratee4
Qualifier
at 5% levele4
Comparator
non-usee0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

t0

“Assessment of forage corn quality intercropping with green beans”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–64 · show in text ↑
e0

“The experimental factors include cropping systems such as mono cropping of corn, mono cropping of green beans, intercropping, Arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungus (use and non-use) and Rhizobium bacteria (use and non-use)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 306–520 · show in text ↑
e4

“Arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungus was significant at 5% level on water soluble carbohydrate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 817–904 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Separate and combined Rhizobium and AMF increased corn quality in intercropping compared with mono cropping.

Taxon
forage cornt0
Treatment
use of separate and combined of Rhizobium bacteria and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal funguse5
Interactor
Rhizobium bacteriae5symbiont
Second interactor
Arbuscular Mycorrhizal funguse5symbiont
Outcome
quality of corn in intercroppinge5
Direction
increasee5
Comparator
mono croppinge5

Verbatim

t0

“Assessment of forage corn quality intercropping with green beans”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–64 · show in text ↑
e5

“The results showed that the use of separate and combined of Rhizobium bacteria and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungus increase the quality of corn in intercropping than mono cropping”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 906–1083 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing plant diversity and soil microorganisms increased forage quality and quantity.

Taxon
forage cornt0
Treatment
increasing of plant diversity and micro-organism in soile6
Outcome
quality and quantity of foragee6
Direction
increasede6

Verbatim

t0

“Assessment of forage corn quality intercropping with green beans”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–64 · show in text ↑
e6

“Finally with increasing of plant diversity and micro-organism in soil increased the quality and quantity of forage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1085–1199 · show in text ↑

mycorrhiza · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 5 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

inoculation · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

25 papers: 20 positive, 5 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

21 papers more in this group

See all 25 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.