Abstract
Current challenges of climate changes and demographic expansion have imposed increasing awareness about innovation in sustainable agricultural practices. Farming practices like intercropping have many benefits in terms of nutrient use and yield stability. Improving the performance of intercropping systems by the application of beneficial microorganisms (rhizobacteria and/or mycorrhizae) constitutes a promising strategy. In this regard, this study aimed to assess the effect of inoculation with beneficial microorganisms on wheat as monocrop or intercrop with faba bean, using four inoculation treatments: (i) inoculation with rhizobacteria, (ii) inoculation with mycorrhizae, (iii) inoculation with the rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae consortium, and (iv) a control treatment consisting of uninoculated plants. Results showed that rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae co-inoculation under intercropping system improved plant dry weight and spike weight of wheat by 375 and 162%, respectively, compared with uninoculated intercropped wheat. The thousand-seed weight was improved by 86% in wheat intercropped and inoculated with the rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae consortium. Furthermore, higher P and N concentrations were observed in shoots and spikes of wheat intercropped with faba bean, and this increase was also observed in response to inoculation with the rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae consortium in terms of P in shoots and spikes (by 74 and 18%) of intercropped wheat. In addition, intercropped wheat has significantly accumulated sugar in the seeds for all inoculated treatments (except inoculation with mycorrhizae). Overall, these findings revealed that intercropping and inoculation yielded better, suggesting that intercropping combined with the application of beneficial microorganisms, such as rhizobacteria and mycorrhizae, have the potential to improve overall crop yield.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae co-inoculation increased intercropped wheat dry weight by 375% against uninoculated intercropped wheat.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae co-inoculatione0
- Interactor
- rhizobacteriaHyphomicrobialese0symbiont
- Second interactor
- mycorrhizaee0symbiont
- Outcome
- plant dry weighte0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 375e0
- Comparator
- uninoculated intercropped wheate0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae co-inoculation under intercropping system improved plant dry weight and spike weight of wheat by 375 and 162%, respectively, compared with uninoculated intercropped wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae co-inoculation increased intercropped wheat spike weight by 162% against uninoculated intercropped wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae co-inoculatione0
- Interactor
- rhizobacteriaHyphomicrobialese0symbiont
- Second interactor
- mycorrhizaee0symbiont
- Outcome
- spike weighte0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 162%e0
- Comparator
- uninoculated intercropped wheate0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae co-inoculation under intercropping system improved plant dry weight and spike weight of wheat by 375 and 162%, respectively, compared with uninoculated intercropped wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae consortium improved thousand-seed weight of intercropped wheat by 86%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- inoculated with the rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae consortiume0
- Interactor
- rhizobacteriaHyphomicrobialese0symbiont
- Second interactor
- mycorrhizaee0symbiont
- Outcome
- thousand-seed weighte0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 86%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The thousand-seed weight was improved by 86% in wheat intercropped and inoculated with the rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae consortium”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat intercropped with faba bean had higher P and N concentrations in shoots and spikes.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Organ / stage
- shoots and spikese0
- Treatment
- intercropped with faba beane0
- Interactor
- faba bean
Vicia fabae0other - Outcome
- P and N concentrationse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher P and N concentrations were observed in shoots and spikes of wheat intercropped with faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Consortium inoculation increased P in shoots of intercropped wheat by 74%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- inoculation with the rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae consortiume0
- Interactor
- rhizobacteriaHyphomicrobialese0symbiont
- Second interactor
- mycorrhizaee0symbiont
- Outcome
- P in shootse0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 74e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in response to inoculation with the rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae consortium in terms of P in shoots and spikes (by 74 and 18%) of intercropped wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Consortium inoculation increased P in spikes of intercropped wheat by 18%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- inoculation with the rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae consortiume0
- Interactor
- rhizobacteriaHyphomicrobialese0symbiont
- Second interactor
- mycorrhizaee0symbiont
- Outcome
- P in shoots and spikese0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 18%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in response to inoculation with the rhizobacteria-mycorrhizae consortium in terms of P in shoots and spikes (by 74 and 18%) of intercropped wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped wheat significantly accumulated seed sugar under inoculation treatments other than mycorrhizae alone.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- all inoculated treatmentse0
- Outcome
- sugar in the seedse0
- Direction
- accumulatede0
- Qualifier
- except inoculation with mycorrhizaee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropped wheat has significantly accumulated sugar in the seeds for all inoculated treatments (except inoculation with mycorrhizae)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggested combining intercropping with beneficial microorganisms to improve crop yield.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Interactor
- rhizobacteriaHyphomicrobialese0symbiont
- Second interactor
- mycorrhizaee0symbiont
- Outcome
- intercropping combined with the application of beneficial microorganismse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping combined with the application of beneficial microorganisms, such as rhizobacteria and mycorrhizae, have the potential to improve overall crop yield”
e1“intercropped wheat has significantly accumulated sugar”
The same questions in other papers
Vicia faba · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
8 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →inoculation · Hyphomicrobiales · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →intercropping · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 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.