Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during 2007–08 to examine the effect of liquid and carrier-based inoculants of Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) on performance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and soil properties. Liquid inoculants of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPR indicated better nodulation than their carrier-based inoculants registering significant increases of 35. 1 and 30. 9% in nodule number and numerical increases of 25. 9 and 2. 7% in nodule dry weight at 60 days crop age, respectively. However, these inoculants were comparable to its carrier-based inoculants on plant dry weight, grain and straw yields and N and P uptake by grain and straw. Liquid inoculant of PGPR also recorded significantly more N uptake by grain and straw by 6. 7 and 19. 4%, respectively, P uptake by grain by 7.1% and available N and P content in soil of 12. 1 and 8. 3%, respectively than its carrier based inoculants. Carrier and liquid inoculants of Mesorhizobium sp. recorded significant increases of 17. 4 and 16. 6% and PGPR of 18. 2 and 16. 9% in soil microbial biomass C (SMBC) over the uninoculated control and were comparable among themselves. Combined use of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPR as carrier-based or liquid inoculants was comparable to their inoculation alone on nodulation, plant dry matter, grain and straw yields and N and P uptake by crop; however, these gave significant increases in SMBC of 15. 7 and 14. 8% over respective carrier inoculants and 16. 9 and 16. 6% over their liquid inoculants alone.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Liquid Mesorhizobium inoculants gave a significant 35.1% increase in nodule number over carrier-based inoculants in chickpea.
- Taxon
- Chickpea
Cicer arietinumt0 - Treatment
- Liquid inoculants of Mesorhizobium sp.e1
- Interactor
- Mesorhizobium ciceriMesorhizobium cicerit0symbiont
- Outcome
- nodule numbere1
- Direction
- significant increasese1
- Value
- 35. 1e1
- Comparator
- carrier-based inoculantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e1“Liquid inoculants of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPR indicated better nodulation than their carrier-based inoculants registering significant increases of 35. 1 and 30. 9% in nodule number and numerical increases of 25. 9 and 2. 7% in nodule dry weight at 60 days crop age, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Liquid PGPR inoculants gave a significant 30.9% increase in nodule number over carrier-based inoculants in chickpea.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Liquid inoculants of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPRe1
- Interactor
- PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta)Brevundimonas diminutat0symbiont
- Outcome
- nodule numbere1
- Direction
- significant increasese1
- Value
- 30. 9%e1
- Comparator
- carrier-based inoculantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e1“Liquid inoculants of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPR indicated better nodulation than their carrier-based inoculants registering significant increases of 35. 1 and 30. 9% in nodule number and numerical increases of 25. 9 and 2. 7% in nodule dry weight at 60 days crop age, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Liquid Mesorhizobium inoculants gave a numerical 25.9% increase in nodule dry weight over carrier-based inoculants at 60 days.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Liquid inoculants of Mesorhizobium sp.e1
- Interactor
- Mesorhizobium ciceriMesorhizobium cicerit0symbiont
- Outcome
- nodule dry weighte1
- Direction
- numerical increasese1
- Value
- 25. 9e1
- Qualifier
- at 60 days crop agee1
- Comparator
- carrier-based inoculantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e1“Liquid inoculants of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPR indicated better nodulation than their carrier-based inoculants registering significant increases of 35. 1 and 30. 9% in nodule number and numerical increases of 25. 9 and 2. 7% in nodule dry weight at 60 days crop age, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Liquid PGPR inoculants gave a numerical 2.7% increase in nodule dry weight over carrier-based inoculants at 60 days.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Liquid inoculants of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPRe1
- Interactor
- PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta)Brevundimonas diminutat0symbiont
- Outcome
- nodule dry weighte1
- Direction
- numerical increasese1
- Value
- 2. 7e1
- Qualifier
- at 60 days crop agee1
- Comparator
- carrier-based inoculantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e1“Liquid inoculants of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPR indicated better nodulation than their carrier-based inoculants registering significant increases of 35. 1 and 30. 9% in nodule number and numerical increases of 25. 9 and 2. 7% in nodule dry weight at 60 days crop age, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Liquid PGPR inoculant gave significantly more grain N uptake than carrier-based inoculants, by 6.7%.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Organ / stage
- graine2
- Treatment
- Liquid inoculant of PGPRe2
- Interactor
- PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta)Brevundimonas diminutat0symbiont
- Outcome
- N uptake by graine2
- Direction
- significantly moree2
- Value
- 6. 7e2
- Comparator
- carrier based inoculantse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e2“Liquid inoculant of PGPR also recorded significantly more N uptake by grain and straw by 6. 7 and 19. 4%, respectively, P uptake by grain by 7.1% and available N and P content in soil of 12. 1 and 8. 3%, respectively than its carrier based inoculants”
Claim · model-written summary
Liquid PGPR inoculant gave significantly more straw N uptake than carrier-based inoculants, by 19.4%.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Organ / stage
- strawe2
- Treatment
- Liquid inoculant of PGPRe2
- Interactor
- PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta)Brevundimonas diminutat0symbiont
- Outcome
- N uptake by grain and strawe2
- Direction
- significantly moree2
- Value
- 19. 4%e2
- Comparator
- carrier based inoculantse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e2“Liquid inoculant of PGPR also recorded significantly more N uptake by grain and straw by 6. 7 and 19. 4%, respectively, P uptake by grain by 7.1% and available N and P content in soil of 12. 1 and 8. 3%, respectively than its carrier based inoculants”
Claim · model-written summary
Liquid PGPR inoculant gave significantly more P uptake by grain than carrier-based inoculants, by 7.1%.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Liquid inoculant of PGPRe2
- Interactor
- PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta)Brevundimonas diminutat0symbiont
- Outcome
- P uptake by graine2
- Direction
- significantly moree2
- Value
- 7.1%e2
- Comparator
- carrier based inoculantse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e2“Liquid inoculant of PGPR also recorded significantly more N uptake by grain and straw by 6. 7 and 19. 4%, respectively, P uptake by grain by 7.1% and available N and P content in soil of 12. 1 and 8. 3%, respectively than its carrier based inoculants”
Claim · model-written summary
Liquid PGPR inoculant gave higher available soil N than carrier-based inoculants, by 12.1%.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Liquid inoculant of PGPRe2
- Interactor
- PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta)Brevundimonas diminutat0symbiont
- Outcome
- available Ne2
- Direction
- higherinferrede2
- Value
- 12. 1e2
- Comparator
- carrier based inoculantse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e2“Liquid inoculant of PGPR also recorded significantly more N uptake by grain and straw by 6. 7 and 19. 4%, respectively, P uptake by grain by 7.1% and available N and P content in soil of 12. 1 and 8. 3%, respectively than its carrier based inoculants”
Claim · model-written summary
Liquid PGPR inoculant gave higher soil P content than carrier-based inoculants, by 8.3%.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Liquid inoculant of PGPRe2
- Interactor
- PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta)Brevundimonas diminutat0symbiont
- Outcome
- P content in soile2
- Direction
- higherinferrede2
- Value
- 8. 3%e2
- Comparator
- carrier based inoculantse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e2“Liquid inoculant of PGPR also recorded significantly more N uptake by grain and straw by 6. 7 and 19. 4%, respectively, P uptake by grain by 7.1% and available N and P content in soil of 12. 1 and 8. 3%, respectively than its carrier based inoculants”
Claim · model-written summary
Carrier and liquid Mesorhizobium inoculants gave significant increases of 17.4% and 16.6% in soil microbial biomass C over the uninoculated control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Carrier and liquid inoculants of Mesorhizobium sp.e3
- Interactor
- Mesorhizobium ciceriMesorhizobium cicerit0symbiont
- Outcome
- soil microbial biomass C (SMBC)e3
- Direction
- significant increasese3
- Value
- 17. 4 and 16. 6%e3
- Comparator
- uninoculated controle3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e3“Carrier and liquid inoculants of Mesorhizobium sp. recorded significant increases of 17. 4 and 16. 6% and PGPR of 18. 2 and 16. 9% in soil microbial biomass C (SMBC) over the uninoculated control and were comparable among themselves”
Claim · model-written summary
PGPR inoculants gave significant increases of 18.2% and 16.9% in soil microbial biomass C over the uninoculated control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- PGPRe3
- Interactor
- PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta)Brevundimonas diminutat0symbiont
- Outcome
- soil microbial biomass C (SMBC)e3
- Direction
- significant increasese3
- Value
- 18. 2 and 16. 9%e3
- Comparator
- uninoculated controle3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e3“Carrier and liquid inoculants of Mesorhizobium sp. recorded significant increases of 17. 4 and 16. 6% and PGPR of 18. 2 and 16. 9% in soil microbial biomass C (SMBC) over the uninoculated control and were comparable among themselves”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined Mesorhizobium and PGPR inoculants were comparable to their inoculation alone on nodulation, plant dry matter, and grain and straw yields.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Combined use of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPRe4
- Interactor
- Mesorhizobium ciceriMesorhizobium cicerit0symbiont
- Second interactor
- PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta)Brevundimonas diminutat0symbiont
- Outcome
- nodulation, plant dry matter, grain and straw yieldse4
- Direction
- comparablee4
- Comparator
- inoculation alonee4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e4“Combined use of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPR as carrier-based or liquid inoculants was comparable to their inoculation alone on nodulation, plant dry matter, grain and straw yields and N and P uptake by crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined Mesorhizobium and PGPR inoculants were comparable to their inoculation alone on N and P uptake by crop.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Combined use of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPRe4
- Interactor
- Mesorhizobium ciceriMesorhizobium cicerit0symbiont
- Second interactor
- PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta)Brevundimonas diminutat0symbiont
- Outcome
- N and P uptake by crope4
- Direction
- comparablee4
- Comparator
- inoculation alonee4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e4“Combined use of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPR as carrier-based or liquid inoculants was comparable to their inoculation alone on nodulation, plant dry matter, grain and straw yields and N and P uptake by crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined Mesorhizobium and PGPR inoculants gave significant increases of 15.7% and 14.8% in soil microbial biomass C over respective carrier inoculants.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Combined use of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPRe4
- Interactor
- Mesorhizobium ciceriMesorhizobium cicerit0symbiont
- Outcome
- SMBCe5
- Direction
- significant increasese5
- Value
- 15. 7 and 14. 8%e5
- Comparator
- respective carrier inoculantse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e4“Combined use of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPR as carrier-based or liquid inoculants was comparable to their inoculation alone on nodulation, plant dry matter, grain and straw yields and N and P uptake by crop”
e5“these gave significant increases in SMBC of 15. 7 and 14. 8% over respective carrier inoculants”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined Mesorhizobium and PGPR inoculants gave significant increases of 16.9% and 16.6% in soil microbial biomass C over their liquid inoculants alone.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Combined use of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPRe4
- Interactor
- Mesorhizobium ciceriMesorhizobium cicerit0symbiont
- Outcome
- SMBCe5
- Direction
- significant increasese5
- Value
- 16. 9 and 16. 6%e6
- Comparator
- their liquid inoculants alonee6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Mesorhizobium ciceri and PGPR (Pseudomonas diminuta) in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e4“Combined use of Mesorhizobium sp. and PGPR as carrier-based or liquid inoculants was comparable to their inoculation alone on nodulation, plant dry matter, grain and straw yields and N and P uptake by crop”
e5“these gave significant increases in SMBC of 15. 7 and 14. 8% over respective carrier inoculants”
e6“16. 9 and 16. 6% over their liquid inoculants alone”
The same questions in other papers
Mesorhizobium · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →Mesorhizobium · soil: biology · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
Mesorhizobium · symbiosis · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
21 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →inoculation · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- positive
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 papers →inoculation · symbiosis · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
109 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- no effect
110 papers more in this group
See all 114 papers →inoculation · soil: biology · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
9 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 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.