Abstract
A two-year irrigated field study was conducted to determine the effects of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR; Bacillus subtilis OSU-142 and Bacillus megaterium M3) as biofertilizer, and in combination with a chemical nitrogen (N) fertilizer, on turf color and clipping yield, and interaction of biofertilizer and chemical N fertilizers in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea L. Schreb.), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.). The three turf species were tested separately in split-plot design experiments with three replications. Three fertilizer sources (ammonium nitrate only, ammonium nitrate + B. megaterium M3, and ammonium nitrate + B. subtilis OSU-142) were the main plots. N applications with monthly applications of 0.0, 2.5, 5.0, and 7.5 g N/m2 were the subplots. Color ratings and clipping yields increased with increasing chemical N fertilizers in all species. Both Bacillus sp. significantly increased color ratings and clipping yields in perennial ryegrass and tall fescue. However, there were no significant differences among the three fertilizer sources in color and clipping yield of Kentucky bluegrass. The experiments showed that there is a small but significant benefit from applying biofertilizers for turf color, and that N fertilization may be reduced in some turf species when biofertilization are made for this purpose.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Both Bacillus species significantly increased perennial ryegrass color ratings and clipping yields.
- Taxon
- perennial ryegrass
Lolium perennee0 - Treatment
- Bacillus sp.e0
- Interactor
- Bacillus sp.e0symbiont
- Outcome
- color ratings and clipping yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both Bacillus sp. significantly increased color ratings and clipping yields in perennial ryegrass and tall fescue.”
Claim · model-written summary
Both Bacillus species significantly increased tall fescue color ratings and clipping yields.
- Taxon
- tall fescue
Lolium arundinaceume0 - Treatment
- Bacillus sp.e0
- Interactor
- Bacillus sp.e0symbiont
- Outcome
- color ratings and clipping yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both Bacillus sp. significantly increased color ratings and clipping yields in perennial ryegrass and tall fescue.”
Claim · model-written summary
Kentucky bluegrass color and clipping yield did not differ significantly among fertilizer sources.
- Taxon
- Kentucky bluegrass
.jpg?width=60)
Poa pratensise0 - Treatment
- three fertilizer sourcese0
- Outcome
- color and clipping yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“there were no significant differences among the three fertilizer sources in color and clipping yield of Kentucky bluegrass.”
Claim · model-written summary
Biofertilizers provided a small significant benefit to turf color.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“there is a small but significant benefit from applying biofertilizers for turf color”
t0“turfgrass”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilization may be reduced for color management in some turf species with biofertilization.
Verbatim
e0“N fertilization may be reduced in some turf species when biofertilization are made for this purpose.”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · quality: postharvest · Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.