Paper · 2023 · Plant and Soil

Effects of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) inoculation on nodule development and rhizosphere carbon and nitrogen content under simulated drought

Joscha N. Becker; Janis Grozinger; Abhijit Sarkar; et al.

8
claims
20
verbatim quotes
17
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract Aims Inoculation with climate-adapted rhizobia is able to increase legume productivity in drought-prone regions of Sub-Saharan Africa. Enhanced nodulation might additionally affect plant-soil interactions and control rhizosphere carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) pools. Methods We investigated inoculation effects on nodulation and biological N 2 fixation (BNF) of Vigna unguiculata and consequent effects on C and N pools in two Namibian soils. Three treatments ( Bradyrhizobium sp.1–7 inoculant, non-inoculated, N-fertilised with 50 kg N ha −1 ) were applied in rhizoboxes at 45% and 20% maximum water holding capacity. Nodule development was photo-documented, and rhizobia-DNA sequences were identified. BNF was assessed by δ 15 N enrichment, and organic C and N pools were analysed in bulk and root adherent soil. Results Plant growth initially enhanced mineral N losses from the rhizosphere at flowering stage (6 weeks growth), but led to a re-increase of N, and organic C contents after ripening (10 weeks). Inoculation had no effect on nodulation and soil C and N pools, indicating that both soils contained sufficient indigenous rhizobia to allow effective nodulation. However, the inoculant strain was more competitive in establishing itself in the root nodules, depending on the local conditions, showing a need for regional adjustment of inoculation strategies. Conclusion Water stress was the main limitation for nodulation and, in combination with soil type, substantially affected rhizosphere and bulk soil C and N contents. The temporally enhanced rhizodeposition after ripening could be able to maintain soil C and N pools after legume cultivation.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bradyrhizobium inoculation had no effect on cowpea nodulation compared with non-inoculated plants.

Taxon
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)Vigna unguiculatat0
Treatment
Bradyrhizobium sp.1–7 inoculante2
Interactor
Bradyrhizobium sp.1–7e2symbiont
Outcome
nodulatione1
Comparator
non-inoculatede2

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

t0

“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–37 · show in text ↑
e1

“Inoculation had no effect on nodulation and soil C and N pools”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1017–1079 · show in text ↑
e2

“Three treatments ( Bradyrhizobium sp.1–7 inoculant, non-inoculated, N-fertilised with 50 kg N ha −1 )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 449–550 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bradyrhizobium inoculation had no effect on soil C and N pools under cowpea compared with non-inoculated plants.

Taxon
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)Vigna unguiculatat0
Treatment
Bradyrhizobium sp.1–7 inoculante2
Interactor
Bradyrhizobium sp.1–7e2symbiont
Outcome
soil C and N poolse1
Comparator
non-inoculatede2

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

t0

“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–37 · show in text ↑
e1

“Inoculation had no effect on nodulation and soil C and N pools”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1017–1079 · show in text ↑
e2

“Three treatments ( Bradyrhizobium sp.1–7 inoculant, non-inoculated, N-fertilised with 50 kg N ha −1 )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 449–550 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Plant growth initially enhanced mineral N losses from the rhizosphere at the flowering stage.

Taxon
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)Vigna unguiculatat0
Organ / stage
flowering stagee3
Outcome
mineral N losses from the rhizospheree3
Direction
enhancede3

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

t0

“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–37 · show in text ↑
e3

“Plant growth initially enhanced mineral N losses from the rhizosphere at flowering stage (6 weeks growth)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 829–934 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After ripening, N and organic C contents of the soil re-increased.

Taxon
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)Vigna unguiculatat0
Organ / stage
ripeninge4
Outcome
N, and organic C contentse4
Direction
re-increasee4
Qualifier
after ripening (10 weeks)e4

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

t0

“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–37 · show in text ↑
e4

“re-increase of N, and organic C contents after ripening (10 weeks)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 949–1015 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The inoculant strain was more competitive in establishing itself in root nodules, depending on local conditions.

Taxon
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)Vigna unguiculatat0
Interactor
Bradyrhizobium sp.1–7e2symbiont
Outcome
establishing itself in the root nodulese5
Qualifier
depending on the local conditionse5

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

t0

“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–37 · show in text ↑
e5

“the inoculant strain was more competitive in establishing itself in the root nodules, depending on the local conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1189–1308 · show in text ↑
e2

“Three treatments ( Bradyrhizobium sp.1–7 inoculant, non-inoculated, N-fertilised with 50 kg N ha −1 )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 449–550 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water stress was the main limitation for nodulation of cowpea.

Taxon
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)Vigna unguiculatat0
Treatment
Water stresse6
Outcome
nodulatione6

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

t0

“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–37 · show in text ↑
e6

“Water stress was the main limitation for nodulation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1387–1438 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water stress in combination with soil type substantially affected rhizosphere and bulk soil C and N contents of cowpea.

Taxon
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)Vigna unguiculatat0
Treatment
Water stresse6
Outcome
rhizosphere and bulk soil C and N contentse7
Qualifier
soil typee7

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

t0

“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–37 · show in text ↑
e6

“Water stress was the main limitation for nodulation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1387–1438 · show in text ↑
e7

“in combination with soil type, substantially affected rhizosphere and bulk soil C and N contents”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1444–1540 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Temporally enhanced rhizodeposition after ripening could maintain soil C and N pools after cowpea cultivation.

Taxon
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)Vigna unguiculatat0
Outcome
soil C and N poolse1
Qualifier
temporally enhanced rhizodeposition after ripeninge1

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

t0

“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–37 · show in text ↑
e1

“The temporally enhanced rhizodeposition after ripening could be able to maintain soil C and N pools after legume cultivation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1542–1666 · show in text ↑

Bradyrhizobium · symbiosis · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results differ

7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect

6 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

inoculation · symbiosis · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results differ

69 papers: 57 positive, 12 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 57 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

65 papers more in this group

See all 69 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.