Abstract
The agricultural expansion in Egypt is of great importance to face the shortage in cereal crop production. Biofertilizers recently are used to overcome the deficiency of some nutrients due to their fixation in the soil and consequently increase its fertility especially in calcareous soil. The current work is aiming to assess the use of phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB) and cyanobacteria (Cyan.) for maize production in calcareous soil. A field experiment was conducted to achieve this goal in a split-plot type in three replicates over two years. The obtained results were promising, where all growth parameters; leaf chlorophyll content, plant height, ear length, ear diameter and ear weight, showed a significant increase. Yield parameters; grain weight, weight of 100 grains, grain yield and straw yield were increased by 56, 27, 86 and 26%, respectively compared to control. Effect of the phosphate solubilizing bacteria on yield exceeded that of cyanobacteria but the effect of their combination was the highest. Nutrient uptake by grain and straw was also remarkably increased, where N, P and K uptake by grain showed an increase of about 112, 192 and 198%, respectively of their values of control treatment. Grain components; carbohydrate and protein contents increased by 8.8 and 112%, respectively as compared to control. Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan. while protein content showed the opposite. Finally, available N, P and K in soil increased by about 55, 94 and 39%, respectively at the end of the experiment.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Biofertilizer increased chlorophyll content and plant growth traits significantly.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“all growth parameters; leaf chlorophyll content, plant height, ear length, ear diameter and ear weight, showed a significant increase”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
Biofertilizer increased grain weight by 56% versus control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain weight, weight of 100 grains, grain yield and straw yield were increased by 56, 27, 86 and 26%, respectively compared to control”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
Biofertilizer increased 100 grain weight by 27% versus control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“weight of 100 grains, grain yield and straw yield were increased by 56, 27, 86 and 26%, respectively compared to control”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
Biofertilizer increased grain yield by 86% versus control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield and straw yield were increased by 56, 27, 86 and 26%, respectively compared to control”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
Biofertilizer increased straw yield by 26% versus control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw yield were increased by 56, 27, 86 and 26%, respectively compared to control”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
PSB had a greater yield effect than cyanobacteria.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Effect of the phosphate solubilizing bacteria on yield exceeded that of cyanobacteria”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
The PSB and cyanobacteria combination had the highest yield effect.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“effect of their combination was the highest”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
Biofertilizer increased grain nitrogen uptake by about 112% versus control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N, P and K uptake by grain showed an increase of about 112, 192 and 198%, respectively of their values of control treatment”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
Biofertilizer increased grain phosphorus uptake by about 192% versus control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N, P and K uptake by grain showed an increase of about 112, 192 and 198%, respectively of their values of control treatment”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
Biofertilizer increased grain potassium uptake by about 198% versus control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N, P and K uptake by grain showed an increase of about 112, 192 and 198%, respectively of their values of control treatment”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
Biofertilizer increased grain carbohydrate content by 8.8% versus control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“carbohydrate and protein contents increased by 8.8 and 112%, respectively as compared to control”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
Biofertilizer increased grain protein content by 112% versus control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“protein contents increased by 8.8 and 112%, respectively as compared to control”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
PSB produced higher carbohydrate content than cyanobacteria.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cyanobacteria produced higher protein content than PSB.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“protein content showed the opposite”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil available nitrogen increased about 55%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“available N, P and K in soil increased by about 55, 94 and 39%, respectively at the end of the experiment”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil available phosphorus increased about 94%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“available N, P and K in soil increased by about 55, 94 and 39%, respectively at the end of the experiment”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil available potassium increased about 39%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“available N, P and K in soil increased by about 55, 94 and 39%, respectively at the end of the experiment”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“Biofertilizers recently are used”
e3“Carbohydrate content under PSB treatment was higher than its value under Cyan.”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
84 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
91 papers more in this group
See all 95 papers →phosphorus · quality: sugar starch · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →inoculation · quality: sugar starch · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →inoculation · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
41 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →inoculation · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
61 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
67 papers more in this group
See all 71 papers →inoculation · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
287 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
302 papers more in this group
See all 306 papers →inoculation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
478 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
534 papers more in this group
See all 538 papers →phosphorus · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
548 papers in the same direction as this paper · 69 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
623 papers more in this group
See all 627 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.