Paper · 2012 · Agriciltural microbiology

THE INFLUENCE OF MICROBIAL PREPARATIONS ON PRODUCTIVITY OF GRAIN-CROPS IN NORTH STEPPE OF UKRAINE

O.M. Grigorieva; T.M. Grigorieva; P.B. Liman; et al.

2
claims
6
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The influence of presowing seed treatment of corn, spring barley and winter wheat on growth, development and productivity of these cultures was studied. It was established that nitrogen-fixing and phosphate-mobilizing microorganisms and their combinations enhance biometrical parameters of plants, influence positively on the productivity and quality of grain comparatively to control.

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 2

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen-fixing and phosphate-mobilizing microorganisms and their combinations enhanced biometrical parameters of corn, spring barley and winter wheat plants compared with control.

Taxon
corn, spring barley and winter wheatHordeum vulgareTriticum aestivumZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment
nitrogen-fixing and phosphate-mobilizing microorganisms and their combinationse1
Outcome
biometrical parameterse1
Direction
enhancee1
Comparator
controle2

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

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“corn, spring barley and winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 45–81 · show in text ↑
e1

“nitrogen-fixing and phosphate-mobilizing microorganisms and their combinations enhance biometrical parameters of plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 177–296 · show in text ↑
e2

“comparatively to control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 360–384 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The microbial preparations positively influenced productivity and quality of grain compared with control.

Taxon
corn, spring barley and winter wheatHordeum vulgareTriticum aestivumZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment
nitrogen-fixing and phosphate-mobilizing microorganisms and their combinationse1
Outcome
productivity and quality of graine2
Direction
positivelye2
Comparator
controle2

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

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“corn, spring barley and winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 45–81 · show in text ↑
e1

“nitrogen-fixing and phosphate-mobilizing microorganisms and their combinations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 177–255 · show in text ↑
e2

“influence positively on the productivity and quality of grain comparatively to control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 298–384 · show in text ↑

nitrogen · quality: general · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

94 papers: 74 positive, 20 negative or no effect

73 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

90 papers more in this group

See all 94 papers →

nitrogen · quality: general · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

inoculation · quality: general · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

phosphorus · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 11 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

phosphorus · quality: general · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

23 papers: 15 positive, 8 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

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

19 papers more in this group

See all 23 papers →

inoculation · quality: general · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

23 papers: 21 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

19 papers more in this group

See all 23 papers →

inoculation · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

25 papers: 20 positive, 5 negative or no effect

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

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

21 papers more in this group

See all 25 papers →

nitrogen · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

44 papers: 33 positive, 11 negative or no effect

32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

40 papers more in this group

See all 44 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.