Abstract
This study evaluated the efficiency of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and the effect of co-inoculation with Bradyrhizobium on mineral accumulation and growth of two cowpea cultivars. The experimental design was a 12 × 2 factorial arranged in a completely randomized design, with four replications. The first factor consisted of 12 nutrient treatments: one control, four with AMF (Rhizophagus clarus and Claroideoglomus etunicatum, inoculated individually and as a mixture, and AMF-based commercial inoculum) and four with AMF + rhizobia (Bradyrhizobium sp. BR 3262); the second factor included two cowpea cultivars (BRS Novaera and Guariba), totaling 96 plots. Morphophysiological traits of plants, nitrogen and phosphorus accumulation in the aerial part, and symbiotic efficiency of microorganisms were evaluated. Double inoculation with C. etunicatum and R. clarus and the co-inoculation with Bradyrhizobium had no effect on height, shoot dry mass and N contents in the shoot of cowpea when compared to single inoculation with AMF. Positive effects of co-inoculation with Bradyrhizobium were verified for root dry mass in the treatments CE+B.BR 3262 and RC+CE+B.BR 3262, and for chlorophyll index and phosphorus content of the cultivar BRS Novaera in the nutrient treatment RC+CE+B .BR 3262. The nutrient treatment with single inoculation of R. clarus and C. etunicatum promoted the accumulation of nitrogen in the shoot for both cultivars. For the BRS Guariba cultivar, inoculation with C. etunicatum also resulted in higher phosphorus content. Overall, plants inoculated with C. etunicatum had a performance similar or superior to plants fertilized with NPK or P, resulting in greater mycorrhizal efficiency, which may be an alternative to conventional fertilization for cowpea cultivars BRS Novaera and BRS Guariba.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Double fungal inoculation had no effect on height, shoot dry mass or shoot nitrogen relative to single AMF inoculation.
- Taxon
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatae0 - Treatment
- Double inoculation with C. etunicatum and R. claruse0
- Interactor
- C. etunicatum
Entrophospora etunicatae0symbiont - Second interactor
- R. clarusRhizophagus claruse0symbiont
- Outcome
- height, shoot dry mass and N contents in the shoote0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Comparator
- single inoculation with AMFe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Double inoculation with C. etunicatum and R. clarus and the co-inoculation with Bradyrhizobium had no effect on height, shoot dry mass and N contents in the shoot of cowpea when compared to single inoculation with AMF.”
Claim · model-written summary
Bradyrhizobium co-inoculation had no effect on height, shoot dry mass or shoot nitrogen relative to single AMF inoculation.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae0
- Treatment
- co-inoculation with Bradyrhizobiume0
- Interactor
- Bradyrhizobium
Bradyrhizobiume0symbiont - Outcome
- height, shoot dry mass and N contents in the shoote0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Comparator
- single inoculation with AMFe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the co-inoculation with Bradyrhizobium had no effect on height, shoot dry mass and N contents in the shoot of cowpea when compared to single inoculation with AMF.”
Claim · model-written summary
CE+B.BR 3262 increased root dry mass.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- CE+B.BR 3262e0
- Interactor
- BradyrhizobiumBradyrhizobiume0symbiont
- Outcome
- root dry masse0
- Direction
- Positive effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Positive effects of co-inoculation with Bradyrhizobium were verified for root dry mass in the treatments CE+B.BR 3262 and RC+CE+B.BR 3262”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
RC+CE+B.BR 3262 increased root dry mass.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- RC+CE+B.BR 3262e0
- Interactor
- BradyrhizobiumBradyrhizobiume0symbiont
- Outcome
- root dry masse0
- Direction
- Positive effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Positive effects of co-inoculation with Bradyrhizobium were verified for root dry mass in the treatments CE+B.BR 3262 and RC+CE+B.BR 3262”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
RC+CE+B.BR 3262 improved BRS Novaera chlorophyll index and phosphorus content.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Material
- BRS Novaerae0
- Treatment
- RC+CE+B .BR 3262e0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll index and phosphorus contente0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for chlorophyll index and phosphorus content of the cultivar BRS Novaera in the nutrient treatment RC+CE+B .BR 3262.”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Single R. clarus inoculation promoted shoot nitrogen accumulation in both cultivars.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- single inoculation of R. claruse0
- Interactor
- R. clarusRhizophagus claruse0symbiont
- Outcome
- accumulation of nitrogen in the shoote0
- Direction
- promotede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The nutrient treatment with single inoculation of R. clarus and C. etunicatum promoted the accumulation of nitrogen in the shoot for both cultivars.”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Single C. etunicatum inoculation promoted shoot nitrogen accumulation in both cultivars.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- C. etunicatume0
- Interactor
- C. etunicatumEntrophospora etunicatae0symbiont
- Outcome
- accumulation of nitrogen in the shoote0
- Direction
- promotede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The nutrient treatment with single inoculation of R. clarus and C. etunicatum promoted the accumulation of nitrogen in the shoot for both cultivars.”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
C. etunicatum inoculation raised phosphorus content in BRS Guariba.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Material
- BRS Guaribae0
- Treatment
- inoculation with C. etunicatume0
- Interactor
- C. etunicatumEntrophospora etunicatae0symbiont
- Outcome
- phosphorus contente0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the BRS Guariba cultivar, inoculation with C. etunicatum also resulted in higher phosphorus content.”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
C. etunicatum inoculation gave similar or superior performance to NPK or P fertilization, with greater mycorrhizal efficiency.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- inoculated with C. etunicatume0
- Interactor
- C. etunicatumEntrophospora etunicatae0symbiont
- Outcome
- performancee0
- Direction
- similar or superiore0
- Comparator
- plants fertilized with NPK or Pe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plants inoculated with C. etunicatum had a performance similar or superior to plants fertilized with NPK or P, resulting in greater mycorrhizal efficiency”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
C. etunicatum inoculation may substitute for conventional fertilization.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae0
- Outcome
- alternative to conventional fertilizatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“which may be an alternative to conventional fertilization for cowpea cultivars BRS Novaera and BRS Guariba.”
The same questions in other papers
Rhizophagus clarus · growth · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
Bradyrhizobium · growth · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →brassinolide · Bradyrhizobium · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
inoculation · molecular: metabolites · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →inoculation · nutrient: content · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
39 papers more in this group
See all 43 papers →inoculation · growth · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 92 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
98 papers more in this group
See all 102 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.