Abstract
Abstract Lentil ( Lens culinaris Medikus) is an important crop, averaging over 250,000 ha in Montana and North Dakota during 2016–2021. However, relatively little is known about rhizobial inoculant and fertility response in lentil in the US northern Great Plains. The objective was to evaluate the effect of rhizobial inoculant formulations (seed coat and in‐furrow) and nutrient additions (potassium [K], sulfur [S], and micronutrients) on lentil yield and seed protein concentration. This study was conducted at seven university research centers in Montana and North Dakota from 2019 to 2021, resulting in 20 location‐years of data. In six of 20 experiments, inoculant application increased seed yield by an average of 36% (323 kg ha −1 , p ≤ 0.05) but had no consistent effect on seed protein concentration. Lentil or pea crop history among locations did not explain inoculant response. Inoculant formulations (seed coat vs. in‐furrow) and K fertilizer had inconsistent and small effects on seed yield and protein concentration. However, S fertilizer (5.6 kg S ha −1 ) increased seed yield in four of 20 experiments ( p ≤ 0.02) by an average of 14.5% (255 kg ha −1 ) in those experiments and decreased seed yield for one experiment ( p = 0.05) by 5.8% (153 kg ha −1 ). Pre‐plant SO 4 ‐S soil test levels did not predict lentil response to S fertilizer. Micronutrient application was assessed in 12 location‐years but had no effect on lentil yield or protein concentration. This research suggests a need to better understand what factors control lentil yield and protein response to rhizobial inoculant and S fertilization.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant increased lentil seed yield in six of 20 experiments by an average of 36%.
- Taxon
- Lentil
Lens culinarise1 - Treatment
- inoculant applicatione0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 36%e0
- Qualifier
- six of 20 experimentse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In six of 20 experiments, inoculant application increased seed yield by an average of 36% (323 kg ha −1 , p ≤ 0.05)”
e1“Lentil ( Lens culinaris Medikus)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant had no consistent effect on lentil seed protein concentration.
- Taxon
- LentilLens culinarise2
- Treatment
- inoculant applicatione1
- Outcome
- seed protein concentratione0
- Direction
- no consistent effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“had no consistent effect on seed protein concentration”
e1“inoculant application increased seed yield”
e2“Lentil ( Lens culinaris Medikus)”
Claim · model-written summary
Lentil or pea crop history did not explain inoculant response.
- Taxon
- LentilLens culinarise0
- Outcome
- inoculant responsee0
- Comparator
- pea crop historye0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lentil or pea crop history among locations did not explain inoculant response”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant formulations had inconsistent and small effects on seed yield and protein concentration.
- Taxon
- LentilLens culinarise1
- Treatment
- Inoculant formulationse0
- Outcome
- seed yield and protein concentratione0
- Direction
- inconsistent and small effectse0
- Comparator
- seed coat vs. in‐furrowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Inoculant formulations (seed coat vs. in‐furrow) and K fertilizer had inconsistent and small effects on seed yield and protein concentration”
e1“Lentil ( Lens culinaris Medikus)”
Claim · model-written summary
K fertilizer had inconsistent and small effects on lentil seed yield and protein concentration.
- Taxon
- LentilLens culinarise1
- Treatment
- K fertilizere0
- Outcome
- seed yield and protein concentratione0
- Direction
- inconsistent and small effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“K fertilizer had inconsistent and small effects on seed yield and protein concentration”
e1“Lentil ( Lens culinaris Medikus)”
Claim · model-written summary
S fertilizer increased seed yield in four of 20 experiments by an average of 14.5%.
- Taxon
- LentilLens culinarise1
- Treatment
- S fertilizer (5.6 kg S ha −1 )e0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 14.5%e0
- Qualifier
- four of 20 experimentse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“S fertilizer (5.6 kg S ha −1 ) increased seed yield in four of 20 experiments ( p ≤ 0.02) by an average of 14.5% (255 kg ha −1 )”
e1“Lentil ( Lens culinaris Medikus)”
Claim · model-written summary
S fertilizer decreased seed yield in one experiment by 5.8%.
- Taxon
- LentilLens culinarise2
- Treatment
- S fertilizer (5.6 kg S ha −1 )e1
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 5.8%e0
- Qualifier
- one experimente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreased seed yield for one experiment ( p = 0.05) by 5.8% (153 kg ha −1 )”
e1“S fertilizer (5.6 kg S ha −1 )”
e2“Lentil ( Lens culinaris Medikus)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-plant soil sulfate test levels did not predict lentil response to S fertilizer.
- Taxon
- LentilLens culinarise1
- Outcome
- lentil response to S fertilizere0
- Setting
- Pre‐plant SO 4 ‐S soil test levelse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pre‐plant SO 4 ‐S soil test levels did not predict lentil response to S fertilizer”
e1“Lentil ( Lens culinaris Medikus)”
Claim · model-written summary
Micronutrient application had no effect on lentil yield or protein concentration in 12 location-years.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Treatment
- Micronutrient applicatione0
- Outcome
- lentil yield or protein concentratione0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- 12 location‐yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Micronutrient application was assessed in 12 location‐years but had no effect on lentil yield or protein concentration”
The same questions in other papers
sulfur atom · yield · Lens culinaris (lentil)Results differ
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →inoculation · yield · Lens culinaris (lentil)Results differ
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
65 papers more in this group
See all 69 papers →fertilization · yield · Lens culinaris (lentil)Results differ
85 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
95 papers more in this group
See all 99 papers →micronutrient · quality: protein · Lens culinaris (lentil)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
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.