Abstract
The present investigation aimed to quantify the difference in response of two Phaseolus mungo L. cultivars (i.e., UH-1 and IPU-94-1) to Glomus mosseae (G), that is, Funneliformis mosseae , Acaulospora laevis (A), and Trichoderma viride (T), in different combinations or alone. All the treatments were inoculated with Bradyrhizobium japonicum to ensure nodulation as soil used in the experiment was sterilized. After 120 days of inoculation, plants were analyzed for chlorophyll content, nodulation, mycorrhization, leaf area, and protein content. Results indicate variation in growth response of two cultivars with different treatments. Triple inoculation of plants with G + A + T proved to be the best treatment for growth followed by G + T in both cultivars. Our work allowed the selection of P. mungo L. cultivar UH-1 as highly mycorrhizal responsive as compared to IPU-94-1 and G. mosseae to be an efficient bioinoculant as compared to A. laevis for growth enhancement of P. mungo . Further characterization of P. mungo genotypes will enhance our knowledge of physiological and genetic mechanism behind increase in plant growth and yield due to AM symbiosis.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Growth responses varied between the two cultivars across inoculation treatments.
- Taxon
- Phaseolus mungo L.
Vigna mungoe1 - Material
- UH-1 and IPU-94-1e1
- Outcome
- variation in growth responsee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results indicate variation in growth response of two cultivars with different treatments”
e1“two Phaseolus mungo L. cultivars (i.e., UH-1 and IPU-94-1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Triple inoculation with G + A + T gave the best growth in both cultivars.
- Taxon
- Phaseolus mungo L.Vigna mungoe1
- Treatment
- Triple inoculation of plants with G + A + Te0
- Interactor
- Glomus mosseae
Funneliformis mosseaee2symbiont - Second interactor
- Acaulospora laevisAcaulospora laevise2symbiont
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- beste0
- Qualifier
- Trichoderma viridee2
- Comparator
- G + Te0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Triple inoculation of plants with G + A + T proved to be the best treatment for growth followed by G + T in both cultivars”
e1“two Phaseolus mungo L. cultivars”
e2“Glomus mosseae (G), that is, Funneliformis mosseae , Acaulospora laevis (A), and Trichoderma viride (T)”
Claim · model-written summary
G + T was the second best growth treatment in both cultivars.
- Taxon
- Phaseolus mungo L.Vigna mungoe1
- Treatment
- G + Te0
- Interactor
- Glomus mosseaeFunneliformis mosseaee2symbiont
- Second interactor
- Trichoderma viride
Trichoderma viridee2symbiont - Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- followed bye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“best treatment for growth followed by G + T in both cultivars”
e1“two Phaseolus mungo L. cultivars”
e2“Glomus mosseae (G), that is, Funneliformis mosseae , Acaulospora laevis (A), and Trichoderma viride (T)”
Claim · model-written summary
UH-1 was more mycorrhizal responsive than IPU-94-1.
- Taxon
- P. mungo L.Vigna mungoe0
- Material
- UH-1e0
- Outcome
- mycorrhizal responsivee0
- Direction
- highlye0
- Comparator
- IPU-94-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P. mungo L. cultivar UH-1 as highly mycorrhizal responsive as compared to IPU-94-1”
Claim · model-written summary
G. mosseae was a more efficient growth bioinoculant than A. laevis.
- Taxon
- P. mungoVigna mungoe0
- Treatment
- G. mosseaee0
- Interactor
- G. mosseaeFunneliformis mosseaee0symbiont
- Outcome
- growth enhancemente0
- Direction
- efficiente0
- Comparator
- A. laevise0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“G. mosseae to be an efficient bioinoculant as compared to A. laevis for growth enhancement of P. mungo”
The same questions in other papers
Funneliformis mosseae · growth · Vigna mungo (black gram)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.