Abstract
The main purpose of this study was to examine the impact of different phosphorus (P) fertilizers and organic manures alone and in combination with Bacillus sp. MN-54 on growth, yield, nutrient uptake, chlorophyll (SPAD value) and crude proteins content of chickpea. The simple manure (SM), processed manure (PM), single super phosphate (SSP), and rock phosphate (RP) were applied individually and in different combinations to the soil in pots, and the chickpea seeds treated with Bacillus sp. MN-54 were sown in the selective pots. Results showed that individual use of SM, PM, SSP, RP, and strain MN-54 significantly increased (P ≤ 0.05) the nutrient uptake, growth, yield, and protein content of chickpea as compared to control treatments. While the combined use of SM or PM, SSP or RP, and MN-54 further enhanced this effect. Among different treatments, combined use of RP, PM and MN-54 proved the most effective treatment showing increase of 37.5 and 42.6% in shoot and root lengths, 43.4 and 38.3% in fresh and dry shoot weights, 36.1 and 36.5% in fresh and dry root weights, 45.8% in no. of pods, 43.6% in nodules counts, 16.0% in 100-grain weight and 31–36% nutrient uptake over control treatments. Our findings suggest that the co-addition of organic manures and P fertilizers along with plant growth promoting bacteria (i.e., Bacillus sp. MN-54) not only increases the growth and yield but also improves nodulation, nutrient uptake, and crude proteins content in chickpea.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Individual SM, PM, SSP, RP and MN-54 treatments significantly increased chickpea nutrient uptake, growth, yield and protein content versus controls.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume0 - Treatment
- SM, PM, SSP, RP, and strain MN-54e0
- Interactor
- strain MN-54e0symbiont
- Outcome
- nutrient uptake, growth, yield, and protein contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“individual use of SM, PM, SSP, RP, and strain MN-54 significantly increased (P ≤ 0.05) the nutrient uptake, growth, yield, and protein content of chickpea as compared to control treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined manure, phosphate and MN-54 further enhanced the treatment effect.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- combined use of SM or PM, SSP or RP, and MN-54e0
- Interactor
- MN-54e0symbiont
- Outcome
- this effecte0
- Direction
- enhancede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the combined use of SM or PM, SSP or RP, and MN-54 further enhanced this effect”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
RP, PM and MN-54 raised shoot length by 37.5% versus controls.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- RP, PM and MN-54e0
- Interactor
- MN-54e0symbiont
- Outcome
- shoot and root lengthse0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 37.5e0
- Comparator
- control treatmentse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“combined use of RP, PM and MN-54 proved the most effective treatment showing increase of 37.5 and 42.6% in shoot and root lengths”
e1“over control treatments”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
RP, PM and MN-54 raised root length by 42.6% versus controls.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- RP, PM and MN-54e1
- Interactor
- MN-54e1symbiont
- Outcome
- root lengthse0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 42.6%e0
- Comparator
- control treatmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increase of 37.5 and 42.6% in shoot and root lengths”
e1“combined use of RP, PM and MN-54”
e2“over control treatments”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
RP, PM and MN-54 raised fresh shoot weight by 43.4% versus controls.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- RP, PM and MN-54e1
- Interactor
- MN-54e1symbiont
- Outcome
- fresh and dry shoot weightse0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 43.4e0
- Comparator
- control treatmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“43.4 and 38.3% in fresh and dry shoot weights”
e1“combined use of RP, PM and MN-54”
e2“over control treatments”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
RP, PM and MN-54 raised dry shoot weight by 38.3% versus controls.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- RP, PM and MN-54e1
- Interactor
- MN-54e1symbiont
- Outcome
- dry shoot weightse0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 38.3%e0
- Comparator
- control treatmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“43.4 and 38.3% in fresh and dry shoot weights”
e1“combined use of RP, PM and MN-54”
e2“over control treatments”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
RP, PM and MN-54 raised fresh root weight by 36.1% versus controls.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- RP, PM and MN-54e1
- Interactor
- MN-54e1symbiont
- Outcome
- fresh and dry root weightse0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 36.1e0
- Comparator
- control treatmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“36.1 and 36.5% in fresh and dry root weights”
e1“combined use of RP, PM and MN-54”
e2“over control treatments”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
RP, PM and MN-54 raised dry root weight by 36.5% versus controls.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- RP, PM and MN-54e1
- Interactor
- MN-54e1symbiont
- Outcome
- dry root weightse0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 36.5%e0
- Comparator
- control treatmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“36.1 and 36.5% in fresh and dry root weights”
e1“combined use of RP, PM and MN-54”
e2“over control treatments”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
RP, PM and MN-54 raised pod number by 45.8% versus controls.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- RP, PM and MN-54e1
- Interactor
- MN-54e1symbiont
- Outcome
- no. of podse0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 45.8%e0
- Comparator
- control treatmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“45.8% in no. of pods”
e1“combined use of RP, PM and MN-54”
e2“over control treatments”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
RP, PM and MN-54 raised nodule count by 43.6% versus controls.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- RP, PM and MN-54e1
- Interactor
- MN-54e1symbiont
- Outcome
- nodules countse0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 43.6%e0
- Comparator
- control treatmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“43.6% in nodules counts”
e1“combined use of RP, PM and MN-54”
e2“over control treatments”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
RP, PM and MN-54 raised 100-grain weight by 16.0% versus controls.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- RP, PM and MN-54e1
- Interactor
- MN-54e1symbiont
- Outcome
- 100-grain weighte0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 16.0%e0
- Comparator
- control treatmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“16.0% in 100-grain weight”
e1“combined use of RP, PM and MN-54”
e2“over control treatments”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
RP, PM and MN-54 raised nutrient uptake by 31–36% versus controls.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- RP, PM and MN-54e1
- Interactor
- MN-54e1symbiont
- Outcome
- nutrient uptakee0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 31–36%e0
- Comparator
- control treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“31–36% nutrient uptake over control treatments”
e1“combined use of RP, PM and MN-54”
t0“Chickpea”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · symbiosis · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 papers →phosphorus · symbiosis · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
49 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 papers →phosphorus · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
54 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
54 papers more in this group
See all 58 papers →phosphorus · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →fertilization · quality: protein · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
46 papers more in this group
See all 50 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
79 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
77 papers more in this group
See all 81 papers →fertilization · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
98 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
101 papers more in this group
See all 105 papers →phosphorus · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
160 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
164 papers more in this group
See all 168 papers →8 of 10 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.