Paper · 2012

Rock biofertilizer and earthworm compound enriched in N with diazotrophic bacteria and micorhyzal fungi provide nutrients for plants.

Newton Pereira Stamford; Monaliza Mirella Morais Andrade; C. E. R. S. Santos; et al.

5
claims
12
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Rock biofertilizers is a practical process and increase nutrients available for plants and soils. The aim of the study was to evaluate the action of biofertilizers from PK rocks mixed with earthworm compound enriched in N by inoculation with diazotrophic bacteria (NPKB) in biomass production and nutrients uptake by cowpea (cv. IPA 206) grown in a Brazilian Spodosol. The effects of AMF fungi (Glomus etunicatum and Gigaspora albida) were also tested. The experiment was carried out in a factorial design (4x3+1). Fertilization treatments were biofertilizer (NPKB) applied in three rates (4.0, 6.0 and 8.0 t ha) and mineral fertilizer (NPKF) in recommended rate. The AMF was applied individually (Glomus etunicatum and Gigaspora albida), and a treatment without AMF was added. In all treatments plants were inoculated with mixed rhizobia strains (NFB 700, BR 3267). A control treatment without AMF and rhizobia inoculation was used. The best results in all analyzed parameters were with NPKB biofertilizer applied in rate (6.0 t ha). Rhizobia inoculation was no effective in cowpea biomass. Glomus etunicatum applied individually showed slight response in shoot biomass. The biofertilizer (NPKB) increase available P and K and showed potential to be applied as alternative for NPK fertilization in soil with low nutrients availability.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NPKB at 6.0 t ha gave the best results across all analyzed parameters.

Material
cv. IPA 206e0
Treatment
NPKB biofertilizer applied in rate (6.0 t ha)e1
Outcome
all analyzed parameterse1
Direction
beste1
Value
6.0 t hae1

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“biomass production and nutrients uptake by cowpea (cv. IPA 206)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 274–337 · show in text ↑
e1

“The best results in all analyzed parameters were with NPKB biofertilizer applied in rate (6.0 t ha).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 934–1034 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rhizobia inoculation was ineffective for cowpea biomass.

Treatment
Rhizobia inoculatione0
Interactor
Rhizobiae0symbiont
Outcome
cowpea biomasse0
Direction
no effectivee0
Comparator
without AMF and rhizobia inoculatione1

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Rhizobia inoculation was no effective in cowpea biomass.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1035–1091 · show in text ↑
e1

“A control treatment without AMF and rhizobia inoculation was used.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 867–933 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Individual Glomus etunicatum application gave a slight shoot biomass response.

Treatment
Glomus etunicatum applied individuallye0
Interactor
Glomus etunicatume0symbiont
Outcome
shoot biomasse0
Qualifier
slight responsee0
Comparator
without AMFe1

Not reportedDirection

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Glomus etunicatum applied individually showed slight response in shoot biomass.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1092–1171 · show in text ↑
e1

“a treatment without AMF was added”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 743–776 · show in text ↑
e2

“nutrients uptake by cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 297–323 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NPKB biofertilizer increased available soil phosphorus and potassium.

Treatment
biofertilizer (NPKB)e1
Outcome
available P and Ke1
Direction
increasee1
Comparator
mineral fertilizer (NPKF)e2

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“nutrients uptake by cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 297–323 · show in text ↑
e1

“The biofertilizer (NPKB) increase available P and K”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1172–1223 · show in text ↑
e2

“mineral fertilizer (NPKF) in recommended rate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 617–662 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors propose NPKB as an alternative to NPK fertilization in nutrient-poor soil.

Outcome
alternative for NPK fertilization in soil with low nutrients availabilitye1

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“nutrients uptake by cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 297–323 · show in text ↑
e1

“showed potential to be applied as alternative for NPK fertilization in soil with low nutrients availability”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1228–1335 · show in text ↑

Glomus · growth · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

inoculation · growth · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

102 papers: 92 positive, 10 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 92 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

98 papers more in this group

See all 102 papers →

inoculation · soil: chemistry · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.