Paper · 2013 · Biosciences Biotechnology Research Asia

Influence of Levels of Chemical Fertilizer and Microbial Inoculants on Yield Attributes Nutrient Uptake and Quality of Sweet Sorghum

R.V. Auti; Syed Ismail; Syed Javed Jani

3
claims
6
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

0brix, TSS, juice yield, juice extraction %, reducing sugar, non reducing sugar and total sugar were also improved with 100% RDF along with dual inoculation of Azospirillum + Gluconacetobacter. Almost trend was also observed in NPK uptake.

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 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Full recommended fertilizer with dual inoculation improved juice traits and sugar measurements in sweet sorghum.

Taxon
Sweet Sorghumt0
Treatment
100% RDF along with dual inoculation of Azospirillum + Gluconacetobactere0
Interactor
AzospirillumAzospirillume0symbiont
Second interactor
GluconacetobacterGluconacetobactere0symbiont
Outcome
0brix, TSS, juice yielde0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Azospirillum
Azospirillum · InteractorFadelblaid · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Gluconacetobacter
Gluconacetobacter · Second interactorSteve Rainwater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“0brix, TSS, juice yield, juice extraction %, reducing sugar, non reducing sugar and total sugar were also improved with 100% RDF along with dual inoculation of Azospirillum + Gluconacetobacter.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–193 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Sorghum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–132 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The same fertilizer and inoculation treatment improved juice extraction and sugar contents.

Taxon
Sweet Sorghumt0
Treatment
100% RDF along with dual inoculation of Azospirillum + Gluconacetobactere0
Interactor
AzospirillumAzospirillume0symbiont
Second interactor
GluconacetobacterGluconacetobactere0symbiont
Outcome
juice extraction %, reducing sugar, non reducing sugar and total sugare0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Azospirillum
Azospirillum · InteractorFadelblaid · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Gluconacetobacter
Gluconacetobacter · Second interactorSteve Rainwater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“0brix, TSS, juice yield, juice extraction %, reducing sugar, non reducing sugar and total sugar were also improved with 100% RDF along with dual inoculation of Azospirillum + Gluconacetobacter.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–193 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Sorghum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–132 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NPK uptake followed a similar trend.

Taxon
Sweet Sorghumt0
Outcome
NPK uptakee0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“Almost trend was also observed in NPK uptake.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 194–239 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Sorghum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–132 · show in text ↑

fertilization · quality: sugar starch · SorghumPositive and negative results

15 papers: 12 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

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

11 papers more in this group

See all 15 papers →

inoculation · quality: sugar starch · SorghumResults agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.