Paper · 2001 · Indian Journal of Agronomy

Influence of crop-establishment practices and microbial inoculants on growth and productivity of summer greengram (Vigna radiata)

RUXANABI NARAGUND; Y.V. SINGH; R.S. BANA; et al.

7
claims
16
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A field experiment was carried out during the summer season in 2018 at the ICARIndian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, to study the effect of crop-establishment practices and microbial inoculation on crop growth and productivity of summer greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek]. The experiment was laid out in split-plot de- sign and treatments were replicated thrice. The experiment included 9 treatment combinations including 3 crop- establishment practices, viz. conventional tillage, zero tillage and zero tillage with chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) residue @ 2.5 t/ha in main plots, and 3 microbial inoculation treatment, viz. control (no inoculation), dual inocula- tion of Rhizobium + phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB) and combined inoculation of Rhizobium + phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB) + arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) Fungi in sub plots. Results showed that zero tillage with residue produced significantly higher growth parameters of greengram, viz. plant height, plants/m2, dry-matter ac- cumulation, leaf-area index, branches/plant, root nodules/plant and root nodule weight/plant at 45 days after sow- ing (DAS). The same treatment showed significantly superior yield attributes at maturity, viz. plants/m2, pods/plant, pod length, grains/pod and 1,000-grain weight, and yields over other 2 treatments. Seed inoculation with Rhizo- bium + PSB + AM fungi was significantly superior to other 2 treatments with regard to plant growth parameters, yield attributes and grain yield.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage with residue significantly increased plant height, density and biomass at 45 DAS.

Treatment
zero tillage with residuee0
Outcome
plant height, plants/m2, dry-matter ac- cumulatione0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
45 days after sow- ing (DAS)e0
Comparator
other 2 treatmentse1

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“zero tillage with residue produced significantly higher growth parameters of greengram, viz. plant height, plants/m2, dry-matter ac- cumulation, leaf-area index, branches/plant, root nodules/plant and root nodule weight/plant at 45 days after sow- ing (DAS)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–1148 · show in text ↑
e1

“over other 2 treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1315–1338 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage with residue significantly increased leaf area, branches and root nodules at 45 DAS.

Treatment
zero tillage with residuee0
Outcome
leaf-area index, branches/plant, root nodules/plante0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
other 2 treatmentse1

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“zero tillage with residue produced significantly higher growth parameters of greengram, viz. plant height, plants/m2, dry-matter ac- cumulation, leaf-area index, branches/plant, root nodules/plant and root nodule weight/plant at 45 days after sow- ing (DAS)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–1148 · show in text ↑
e1

“over other 2 treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1315–1338 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage with residue significantly increased root nodule weight at 45 DAS.

Treatment
zero tillage with residuee0
Outcome
root nodule weight/plante0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
other 2 treatmentse1

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“zero tillage with residue produced significantly higher growth parameters of greengram, viz. plant height, plants/m2, dry-matter ac- cumulation, leaf-area index, branches/plant, root nodules/plant and root nodule weight/plant at 45 days after sow- ing (DAS)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–1148 · show in text ↑
e1

“over other 2 treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1315–1338 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage with residue gave superior plant density, pod number and pod length at maturity.

Treatment
zero tillage with residuee1
Outcome
plants/m2, pods/plant, pod lengthe0
Direction
superiore0
Comparator
other 2 treatmentse0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The same treatment showed significantly superior yield attributes at maturity, viz. plants/m2, pods/plant, pod length, grains/pod and 1,000-grain weight, and yields over other 2 treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1150–1338 · show in text ↑
e1

“zero tillage with residue”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–916 · show in text ↑
e2

“summer greengram (Vigna radiata)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 97–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage with residue gave superior grain number, grain weight and yield at maturity.

Treatment
zero tillage with residuee1
Outcome
grains/pod and 1,000-grain weight, and yieldse0
Direction
superiore0
Comparator
other 2 treatmentse0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The same treatment showed significantly superior yield attributes at maturity, viz. plants/m2, pods/plant, pod length, grains/pod and 1,000-grain weight, and yields over other 2 treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1150–1338 · show in text ↑
e1

“zero tillage with residue”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–916 · show in text ↑
e2

“summer greengram (Vigna radiata)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 97–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Rhizobium plus PSB plus AM fungi significantly improved growth parameters relative to other inoculation treatments.

Treatment
Seed inoculation with Rhizo- bium + PSB + AM fungie0
Interactor
Rhizo- biume0symbiont
Second interactor
AM fungiGlomeromycotae0symbiont
Outcome
plant growth parameterse0
Direction
superiore0
Comparator
other 2 treatmentse0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Seed inoculation with Rhizo- bium + PSB + AM fungi was significantly superior to other 2 treatments with regard to plant growth parameters, yield attributes and grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1340–1512 · show in text ↑
e1

“summer greengram (Vigna radiata)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 97–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Rhizobium plus PSB plus AM fungi significantly improved yield attributes and grain yield.

Treatment
Seed inoculation with Rhizo- bium + PSB + AM fungie0
Interactor
Rhizo- biume0symbiont
Second interactor
AM fungiGlomeromycotae0symbiont
Outcome
yield attributes and grain yielde0
Direction
superiore0
Comparator
other 2 treatmentse0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Seed inoculation with Rhizo- bium + PSB + AM fungi was significantly superior to other 2 treatments with regard to plant growth parameters, yield attributes and grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1340–1512 · show in text ↑
e1

“summer greengram (Vigna radiata)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 97–129 · show in text ↑

phosphorus · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results differ

179 papers: 175 positive, 4 negative or no effect

174 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

175 papers more in this group

See all 179 papers →

tillage · growth · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results

19 papers: 15 positive, 4 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

15 papers more in this group

See all 19 papers →

mycorrhiza · growth · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results

23 papers: 22 positive, 1 negative or no effect

21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

19 papers more in this group

See all 23 papers →

phosphorus · growth · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results

68 papers: 66 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

64 papers more in this group

See all 68 papers →

tillage · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results

81 papers: 67 positive, 14 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

77 papers more in this group

See all 81 papers →

inoculation · growth · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results

126 papers: 118 positive, 8 negative or no effect

117 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

122 papers more in this group

See all 126 papers →

inoculation · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results

184 papers: 179 positive, 5 negative or no effect

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

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

180 papers more in this group

See all 184 papers →

tillage · symbiosis · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

8 of 9 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.