Abstract
Excessive and unbalanced use of chemical fertilisers can lead to depletion of physical and chemical properties of the soil and have negative impacts on the environment. This investigation was conducted at Mizoram University, Aizawl, Mizoram, India and aimed to evaluate effects of organic amendments, biofertilisers and biodynamic preparations on soil properties and leaf nutrient status of grapevine. The experiment was laid out in randomised block design with 14 treatments consisting of different combinations of organic amendments, biofertilisers and biodynamic preparations viz. farmyard manure (FYM), vermicompost (VC), pig manure (PIM), neem cake (NC), Azospirillum, phosphate solubilising bacteria (PSB), potash solubilising bacteria (KSB), Trichoderma harzianum, cow pat pit (CPP) and biodynamic preparations BD500 and BD501. The results demonstrated that the use of organic amendments in combination with biofertilisers and biodynamic preparations enhanced leaf nutrient status as well soil properties in the vineyard. Among all the tested combinations, the highest concentrations of Mn, Zn, chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll in the leaves and concentrations of soil organic carbon, inorganic carbon, total carbon, total N, available N, P, K, Mn and Zn, cation exchange capacity (CEC) and abundance of bacteria and Actinomycetes in the soil were recorded with application of PIM + Azospirillum + PSB + KSB + T. harzianum + CPP + BD 500 + BD 501. This treatment was therefore recommended as a suitable option to meet the demand for long-term maintenance of soil fertility as well agroecosystem conservation and sustainability.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Combined amendments improved grapevine leaf nutrient status and vineyard soil properties.
- Treatment
- organic amendments in combination with biofertilisers and biodynamic preparationse0
- Outcome
- leaf nutrient status as well soil propertiese0
- Direction
- enhancede0
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the use of organic amendments in combination with biofertilisers and biodynamic preparations enhanced leaf nutrient status as well soil properties in the vineyard”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
The specified combination gave the highest leaf Mn and Zn concentrations.
- Organ / stage
- leavese0
- Treatment
- PIM + Azospirillum + PSB + KSB + T. harzianum + CPP + BD 500 + BD 501e0
- Interactor
- Azospirillum
Azospirillume0symbiont - Outcome
- concentrations of Mn, Zne0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest concentrations of Mn, Zn, chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll in the leaves and concentrations of soil organic carbon, inorganic carbon, total carbon, total N, available N, P, K, Mn and Zn, cation exchange capacity (CEC) and abundance of bacteria and Actinomycetes in the soil were recorded with application of PIM + Azospirillum + PSB + KSB + T. harzianum + CPP + BD 500 + BD 501”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
The specified combination gave the highest leaf chlorophyll concentrations.
- Organ / stage
- leavese0
- Treatment
- PIM + Azospirillum + PSB + KSB + T. harzianum + CPP + BD 500 + BD 501e0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophylle0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest concentrations of Mn, Zn, chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll in the leaves and concentrations of soil organic carbon, inorganic carbon, total carbon, total N, available N, P, K, Mn and Zn, cation exchange capacity (CEC) and abundance of bacteria and Actinomycetes in the soil were recorded with application of PIM + Azospirillum + PSB + KSB + T. harzianum + CPP + BD 500 + BD 501”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
The specified combination gave the highest soil carbon and nutrient concentrations.
- Treatment
- PIM + Azospirillum + PSB + KSB + T. harzianum + CPP + BD 500 + BD 501e0
- Outcome
- soil organic carbon, inorganic carbon, total carbon, total N, available N, P, K, Mn and Zne0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest concentrations of Mn, Zn, chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll in the leaves and concentrations of soil organic carbon, inorganic carbon, total carbon, total N, available N, P, K, Mn and Zn, cation exchange capacity (CEC) and abundance of bacteria and Actinomycetes in the soil were recorded with application of PIM + Azospirillum + PSB + KSB + T. harzianum + CPP + BD 500 + BD 501”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
The specified combination gave the highest soil cation exchange capacity and bacterial and Actinomycetes abundance.
- Treatment
- PIM + Azospirillum + PSB + KSB + T. harzianum + CPP + BD 500 + BD 501e0
- Outcome
- cation exchange capacity (CEC) and abundance of bacteria and Actinomycetes in the soile0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cation exchange capacity (CEC) and abundance of bacteria and Actinomycetes in the soil were recorded with application of PIM + Azospirillum + PSB + KSB + T. harzianum + CPP + BD 500 + BD 501”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend the specified treatment for long-term soil fertility and agroecosystem conservation.
- Outcome
- long-term maintenance of soil fertility as well agroecosystem conservation and sustainabilitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevine”
e0“This treatment was therefore recommended as a suitable option to meet the demand for long-term maintenance of soil fertility as well agroecosystem conservation and sustainability.”
The same questions in other papers
Trichoderma harzianum · physiology: pigments · VitisPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
inoculation · physiology: pigments · VitisResults differ
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →phosphorus · physiology: pigments · VitisPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →fertilization · pest · VitisPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →inoculation · pest · VitisPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →phosphorus · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →inoculation · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →fertilization · physiology: pigments · VitisPositive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.