Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during the rainy (kharif) seasons of 2014 and 2015 on loamy sand soil of Bikaner, Rajasthan, to study the integrated nutrient management in pearlmillet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.]. The experiment comprising of 8 treatments, viz. control, 50% recommended dose of fertilizer (30 kg N + 20 kg P2O5 + 10 kg K2O/ha), 50% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) + Azotobactor + phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria (PSB), 50% RDF + 5 t FYM + Azotobactor, 50% RDF + 5 t FYM + PSB, 50% RDF + 5 t FYM + Azotobactor + PSB, 100% RDF (60 kg N + 40 kg P2O5 + 20 kg K2O/ha) and 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSB in randomized block design with 3 replications. Application of 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSB significantly increased plant height (182.2 cm), dry-matter accumulation (81.83 g/plant), total tillers (2.23), chlorophyll content (2.96 mg/g), effective tillers/plant (1.63), ear length (19.63), girth of ear (78.6 mm), grain weight/ear (6.19 g), 1, 000-seed weight (7.73 g), grain (2.48 t/ha) and straw yields (4.34 t/ha), content of N (1.84 and 0.594%), P (0.293 and 0.141%) and K (0.735 and 2.28%) in grain and straw and total uptake of N (71.5 kg/ha), P (13.4 kg/ha) and K (117.0 kg/ha). Organic carbon, available N, P and K status of soil after harvest of pearlmillet increased significantly with 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSB or 50% RDF + 5 t FYM + Azotobactor + PSB. Significantly maximum net returns ( 37, 594/ha) with benefit: cost ratio (2.29) of pearlmillet was obtained under 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSB.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
100% RDF plus Azotobactor and PSB significantly increased pearlmillet height, dry matter and tillers.
- Taxon
- pearlmillet
Cenchrus americanuse1 - Treatment
- 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSBe0
- Interactor
- Azotobactore0symbiont
- Second interactor
- PSBe0symbiont
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 182.2 cme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSB significantly increased plant height (182.2 cm), dry-matter accumulation (81.83 g/plant), total tillers (2.23)”
e1“in pearlmillet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.]”
Claim · model-written summary
The same treatment significantly increased chlorophyll content to 2.96 mg/g.
- Taxon
- pearlmilletCenchrus americanuse1
- Treatment
- 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSBe0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 2.96 mg/ge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSB significantly increased plant height (182.2 cm), dry-matter accumulation (81.83 g/plant), total tillers (2.23), chlorophyll content (2.96 mg/g)”
e1“in pearlmillet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.]”
Claim · model-written summary
The same treatment significantly increased pearlmillet grain yield to 2.48 t/ha.
- Taxon
- pearlmilletCenchrus americanuse2
- Treatment
- 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSBe0
- Outcome
- graine1
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 2.48 t/hae1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSB significantly increased”
e1“grain (2.48 t/ha) and straw yields (4.34 t/ha)”
e2“in pearlmillet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.]”
Claim · model-written summary
The same treatment significantly increased straw yield to 4.34 t/ha.
- Taxon
- pearlmilletCenchrus americanuse2
- Treatment
- 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSBe0
- Outcome
- straw yieldse1
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 4.34 t/hae1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSB significantly increased”
e1“straw yields (4.34 t/ha)”
e2“in pearlmillet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.]”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatment significantly increased postharvest soil organic carbon and available N, P and K; the half RDF plus FYM and inoculants treatment also did so.
- Taxon
- pearlmilletCenchrus americanuse0
- Treatment
- 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSBe0
- Outcome
- Organic carbon, available N, P and K status of soile0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Organic carbon, available N, P and K status of soil after harvest of pearlmillet increased significantly with 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSB or 50% RDF + 5 t FYM + Azotobactor + PSB.”
Claim · model-written summary
100% RDF plus Azotobactor and PSB produced maximum net returns of 37, 594/ha.
- Taxon
- pearlmilletCenchrus americanuse0
- Treatment
- 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSBe0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 37, 594/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significantly maximum net returns ( 37, 594/ha) with benefit: cost ratio (2.29) of pearlmillet was obtained under 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSB.”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatment produced a benefit to cost ratio of 2.29.
- Taxon
- pearlmilletCenchrus americanuse0
- Treatment
- 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSBe0
- Outcome
- benefit: cost ratioe0
- Value
- 2.29e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“benefit: cost ratio (2.29) of pearlmillet was obtained under 100% RDF + Azotobactor + PSB.”
The same questions in other papers
phosphorus · nutrient: content · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →fertilization · physiology: pigments · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →inoculation · nutrient: content · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →phosphorus · growth · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →inoculation · growth · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →inoculation · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results
50 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
51 papers more in this group
See all 55 papers →phosphorus · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
62 papers more in this group
See all 66 papers →fertilization · growth · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
66 papers more in this group
See all 70 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.