Paper · 2018 · Crop and Pasture Science

Indigenous plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria and chemical fertilisers: impact on wheat (Triticum aestivum) productivity and soil properties in North Western Himalayan region

Gaurav Sood; Rajesh Kaushal; Anjali Chauhan; et al.

9
claims
14
verbatim quotes
26
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

High levels of crop productivity cannot be sustained by chemical fertiliser application alone. In order to mitigate this, a 2-year study was conducted to test the effects of combined application of indigenous plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and chemical fertilisers on productivity of wheat and soil properties. Ten morphologically distinct indigenous PGPR isolates from wheat roots and rhizosphere were evaluated at Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India, during 2013–14. Three PGPR isolates (B2, SIR1 and BIS2) with maximum PGP traits were screened at different doses of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) (80%, 60% and 40% of recommended fertiliser dose, RFD) under net-house conditions. Two isolates, B2 (Serratia sp.) and SIR1 (Bacillus subtilis), along with the optimum NP dose (i.e. 80% RFD) were selected for field experimentation, which was performed over two consecutive years, 2014–16. Combined application of 80% RDF of NP with PGPR (B2) significantly increased wheat yield by 9.4%, number of tillers per plant by 28.03%, grain number per spike by 19.61%, 1000-grain weight by 10.5%, and biomass by 9.2% relative to the uninoculated control with 100% RFD. Soil properties in the terms of available N, P and potassium, microbial biomass carbon, soil enzyme activities and population of phosphate-solubilising bacteria in the wheat crop were significantly increased by the combined application of bacterial inoculants with 80% RFD of NP in both years over the uninoculated control. Therefore, the results revealed the potential of indigenous PGPR isolates to supplement ~20% of NP fertilisers without hampering the soil fertility and productivity of wheat.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

B2 plus 80% fertilizer significantly increased wheat wheat yield by 9.4% relative to uninoculated full fertilizer.

Treatment
80% RDF of NP with PGPR (B2)e0
Interactor
Serratia sp.e1symbiont
Outcome
wheat yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
9.4%e0
Comparator
uninoculated control with 100% RFDe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Combined application of 80% RDF of NP with PGPR (B2) significantly increased wheat yield by 9.4%, number of tillers per plant by 28.03%, grain number per spike by 19.61%, 1000-grain weight by 10.5%, and biomass by 9.2% relative to the uninoculated control with 100% RFD.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 898–1168 · show in text ↑
e1

“B2 (Serratia sp.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 706–723 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

B2 plus 80% fertilizer significantly increased wheat number of tillers per plant by 28.03% relative to uninoculated full fertilizer.

Treatment
80% RDF of NP with PGPR (B2)e0
Interactor
Serratia sp.e1symbiont
Outcome
number of tillers per plante0
Direction
increasede0
Value
28.03%e0
Comparator
uninoculated control with 100% RFDe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Combined application of 80% RDF of NP with PGPR (B2) significantly increased wheat yield by 9.4%, number of tillers per plant by 28.03%, grain number per spike by 19.61%, 1000-grain weight by 10.5%, and biomass by 9.2% relative to the uninoculated control with 100% RFD.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 898–1168 · show in text ↑
e1

“B2 (Serratia sp.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 706–723 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

B2 plus 80% fertilizer significantly increased wheat grain number per spike by 19.61% relative to uninoculated full fertilizer.

Treatment
80% RDF of NP with PGPR (B2)e0
Interactor
Serratia sp.e1symbiont
Outcome
grain number per spikee0
Direction
increasede0
Value
19.61%e0
Comparator
uninoculated control with 100% RFDe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Combined application of 80% RDF of NP with PGPR (B2) significantly increased wheat yield by 9.4%, number of tillers per plant by 28.03%, grain number per spike by 19.61%, 1000-grain weight by 10.5%, and biomass by 9.2% relative to the uninoculated control with 100% RFD.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 898–1168 · show in text ↑
e1

“B2 (Serratia sp.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 706–723 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

B2 plus 80% fertilizer significantly increased wheat 1000-grain weight by 10.5% relative to uninoculated full fertilizer.

Treatment
80% RDF of NP with PGPR (B2)e0
Interactor
Serratia sp.e1symbiont
Outcome
1000-grain weighte0
Direction
increasede0
Value
10.5%e0
Comparator
uninoculated control with 100% RFDe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Combined application of 80% RDF of NP with PGPR (B2) significantly increased wheat yield by 9.4%, number of tillers per plant by 28.03%, grain number per spike by 19.61%, 1000-grain weight by 10.5%, and biomass by 9.2% relative to the uninoculated control with 100% RFD.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 898–1168 · show in text ↑
e1

“B2 (Serratia sp.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 706–723 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

B2 plus 80% fertilizer significantly increased wheat biomass by 9.2% relative to uninoculated full fertilizer.

Treatment
80% RDF of NP with PGPR (B2)e0
Interactor
Serratia sp.e1symbiont
Outcome
biomasse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
9.2%e0
Comparator
uninoculated control with 100% RFDe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Combined application of 80% RDF of NP with PGPR (B2) significantly increased wheat yield by 9.4%, number of tillers per plant by 28.03%, grain number per spike by 19.61%, 1000-grain weight by 10.5%, and biomass by 9.2% relative to the uninoculated control with 100% RFD.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 898–1168 · show in text ↑
e1

“B2 (Serratia sp.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 706–723 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial inoculants with 80% fertilizer significantly increased soil available N, P and potassium in wheat crops.

Treatment
bacterial inoculants with 80% RFD of NPe0
Outcome
available N, P and potassiume0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
uninoculated controle0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil properties in the terms of available N, P and potassium, microbial biomass carbon, soil enzyme activities and population of phosphate-solubilising bacteria in the wheat crop were significantly increased by the combined application of bacterial inoculants with 80% RFD of NP in both years over the uninoculated control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1169–1492 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial inoculants with 80% fertilizer significantly increased microbial biomass carbon and soil enzyme activities.

Treatment
bacterial inoculants with 80% RFD of NPe0
Outcome
microbial biomass carbon, soil enzyme activitiese0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
uninoculated controle0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil properties in the terms of available N, P and potassium, microbial biomass carbon, soil enzyme activities and population of phosphate-solubilising bacteria in the wheat crop were significantly increased by the combined application of bacterial inoculants with 80% RFD of NP in both years over the uninoculated control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1169–1492 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial inoculants with 80% fertilizer significantly increased phosphate solubilizing bacteria in wheat crops.

Treatment
bacterial inoculants with 80% RFD of NPe0
Outcome
population of phosphate-solubilising bacteriae0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
uninoculated controle0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil properties in the terms of available N, P and potassium, microbial biomass carbon, soil enzyme activities and population of phosphate-solubilising bacteria in the wheat crop were significantly increased by the combined application of bacterial inoculants with 80% RFD of NP in both years over the uninoculated control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1169–1492 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Authors concluded indigenous PGPR could replace about 20% of NP fertilizer without reducing wheat productivity or soil fertility.

Outcome
supplement ~20% of NP fertiliserse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“potential of indigenous PGPR isolates to supplement ~20% of NP fertilisers without hampering the soil fertility and productivity of wheat.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1529–1667 · show in text ↑

nanoparticle · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 13 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

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

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

inoculation · pest · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

24 papers: 22 positive, 2 negative or no effect

21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

20 papers more in this group

See all 24 papers →

inoculation · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

49 papers: 44 positive, 5 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

45 papers more in this group

See all 49 papers →

inoculation · soil: biology · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

65 papers: 58 positive, 7 negative or no effect

57 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

61 papers more in this group

See all 65 papers →

nanoparticle · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

168 papers: 146 positive, 22 negative or no effect

145 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

164 papers more in this group

See all 168 papers →

nanoparticle · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

260 papers: 242 positive, 18 negative or no effect

241 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

256 papers more in this group

See all 260 papers →

inoculation · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

532 papers: 476 positive, 56 negative or no effect

475 papers in the same direction as this paper · 55 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

528 papers more in this group

See all 532 papers →

inoculation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

614 papers: 549 positive, 65 negative or no effect

548 papers in the same direction as this paper · 60 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

610 papers more in this group

See all 614 papers →

8 of 12 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.