Paper · 2019 · Journal of Water and Soil Science

The Effect of Zinc Solubilizing Bacteria on Zinc Uptake and Some Properties of Wheat in the Greenhouse

B. Rezaeiniko; N. Enayatizamir; M. Norouzi Masir

4
claims
9
verbatim quotes
9
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc

Abstract

Zinc is essential micronutrients for plants. This element improves plant growth and yield and plays a role in the metabolism of carbohydrates. Zinc deficiency in soils and Iranian crops is possible due to numerous reasons such as calcareous soils, excessive use of phosphorus fertilizers and unbalanced fertilizer use. The effect of zinc solubilizing bacteria on some wheat properties was considered as a factorial experiment in greenhouse conditions based on a completely randomized design. Treatments consisted of four levels of bacteria comprising B1 (control), B2 (Bacillus megaterium), B3 (Enterobacter cloacae) and B4 (consortium of both bacterium), and ZnSO4 fertilizer at three levels including Zn0 (control), Zn20 (20 Kg/ha) and Zn40 (40 kg/ha). During the experiment, some parameters such as plant height and chlorophyll index were measured. At the end of the cultivation period, soil available zinc, dry weight of root and aerial part, and the zinc concentration of the root, shoot and grain were determined. Grain yield and zinc uptake in the grain were also calculated. The results indicated soil exchangeable zinc content was increased significantly (P<0.05) in all bacterial treatments, as compared to the control treatment. The maximum amount of soil exchangeable zinc, grain yield, zinc concentration and uptake in grain were observed in the treatment containing bacteria consortium with the application of 40 kg/ha of zinc sulfate fertilizer, which was followed by the treatment containing Enterobacter cloacae with the application of 40 kg/ha of the zinc sulfate fertilizer. The maximum amount of all measured properties in the treatment containing Enterobacter cloacae and Bacillus megaterium indicated the possibility of applying those bacteria for zinc enrichment in wheat, crop optimal production, and the sustainable agriculture.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

All bacterial treatments increased soil exchangeable zinc.

Treatment
all bacterial treatmentse0
Outcome
soil exchangeable zinc contente0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
control treatmente0

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

“The results indicated soil exchangeable zinc content was increased significantly (P<0.05) in all bacterial treatments, as compared to the control treatment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1083–1239 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–84 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The bacterial consortium with 40 kg/ha zinc sulfate maximized soil exchangeable zinc.

Treatment
bacteria consortium with the application of 40 kg/ha of zinc sulfate fertilizere0
Interactor
consortium of both bacteriume1symbiont
Outcome
soil exchangeable zince0
Direction
maximume0

Not reportedComparator

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

“The maximum amount of soil exchangeable zinc, grain yield, zinc concentration and uptake in grain were observed in the treatment containing bacteria consortium with the application of 40 kg/ha of zinc sulfate fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1240–1459 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–84 · show in text ↑
e1

“consortium of both bacterium”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 625–653 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The bacterial consortium with 40 kg/ha zinc sulfate maximized grain yield.

Treatment
bacteria consortium with the application of 40 kg/ha of zinc sulfate fertilizere0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
maximume0

Not reportedComparator

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

“The maximum amount of soil exchangeable zinc, grain yield, zinc concentration and uptake in grain were observed in the treatment containing bacteria consortium with the application of 40 kg/ha of zinc sulfate fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1240–1459 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–84 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The bacterial consortium with 40 kg/ha zinc sulfate maximized grain zinc concentration and uptake.

Treatment
bacteria consortium with the application of 40 kg/ha of zinc sulfate fertilizere0
Outcome
zinc concentration and uptake in graine0
Direction
maximume0

Not reportedComparator

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

“The maximum amount of soil exchangeable zinc, grain yield, zinc concentration and uptake in grain were observed in the treatment containing bacteria consortium with the application of 40 kg/ha of zinc sulfate fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1240–1459 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–84 · show in text ↑

zinc sulfate · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

100 papers: 98 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

96 papers more in this group

See all 100 papers →

zinc sulfate · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

39 papers: 37 positive, 2 negative or no effect

36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

35 papers more in this group

See all 39 papers →

inoculation · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

277 papers: 263 positive, 14 negative or no effect

262 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

273 papers more in this group

See all 277 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. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

610 papers more in this group

See all 614 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

959 papers: 854 positive, 105 negative or no effect

853 papers in the same direction as this paper · 95 in the opposite direction · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

955 papers more in this group

See all 959 papers →

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

3,438 papers: 3,115 positive, 323 negative or no effect

3,114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 284 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

3,434 papers more in this group

See all 3,438 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.