Abstract
Abstract Although humans have studied biological nitrogen (N) fixation for nearly two centuries, our understanding of how legumes–microbiome interactions impact agroecosystem function is still evolving. To understand the effects of organic fertilizers and dual inoculation with Rhizobium and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) on root activity, N fixation and nutrient uptake of chickpea ( Cicer arietinum ), a two‐year greenhouse study was conducted in 2020–2021 at the research station of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. The experiment design was a randomized complete blocks in the factorial arrangement with three replications. The first factor consisted of two seedbeds including S1 (field soil) and S2 (soil + humic acid + 40 ton ha −1 cattle manure). The second factor included inoculation with Rhizobium alone, mycorrhiza alone, both Rhizobium and mycorrhiza and non‐inoculated treatment. The results showed that the application of organic fertilizers increased the number of nodules, nodule weight, AMF colonization, leaf N content, leaf P content, root volume, root biomass and N uptake of chickpea, significantly. Also, the effect of seed inoculation was significant on all studied parameters where the highest root biomass (2 g), root volume (3.6 cm 3 ) and leaf phosphorus (0.54%) were obtained in co‐inoculated treatments. There was no significant difference between the effect of single inoculation of Rhizobium and dual inoculation of mycorrhiza and Rhizobium on nodule number, nodule weight, leaf N and N uptake of chickpea. Generally, rhizobia and AMF can benefit nutrient uptake and root activity of chickpea, potentially leading to higher crop production.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Organic fertilizers significantly increased chickpea nodule number and weight and AMF colonization.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume0 - Treatment
- application of organic fertilizerse0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- number of nodules, nodule weight, AMF colonizatione0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the application of organic fertilizers increased the number of nodules, nodule weight, AMF colonization, leaf N content, leaf P content, root volume, root biomass and N uptake of chickpea, significantly”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic fertilizers significantly increased chickpea leaf N and P content and N uptake.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- application of organic fertilizerse0
- Outcome
- leaf N content, leaf P content, root volume, root biomass and N uptakee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the application of organic fertilizers increased the number of nodules, nodule weight, AMF colonization, leaf N content, leaf P content, root volume, root biomass and N uptake of chickpea, significantly”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic fertilizers significantly increased chickpea root volume and biomass.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- application of organic fertilizerse0
- Outcome
- root volume, root biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the application of organic fertilizers increased the number of nodules, nodule weight, AMF colonization, leaf N content, leaf P content, root volume, root biomass and N uptake of chickpea, significantly”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed inoculation significantly affected all measured parameters.
- Outcome
- all studied parameterse0
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“the effect of seed inoculation was significant on all studied parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Coinoculation gave the highest root biomass of 2 g.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“the highest root biomass (2 g), root volume (3.6 cm 3 ) and leaf phosphorus (0.54%) were obtained in co‐inoculated treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Coinoculation gave the highest root volume of 3.6 cm 3.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“the highest root biomass (2 g), root volume (3.6 cm 3 ) and leaf phosphorus (0.54%) were obtained in co‐inoculated treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Coinoculation gave the highest leaf phosphorus of 0.54%.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“the highest root biomass (2 g), root volume (3.6 cm 3 ) and leaf phosphorus (0.54%) were obtained in co‐inoculated treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobium alone and dual inoculation did not differ significantly for nodule number and weight.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- single inoculation of Rhizobiume0
- Outcome
- nodule number, nodule weighte0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Comparator
- dual inoculation of mycorrhiza and Rhizobiume0
RhizobiumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was no significant difference between the effect of single inoculation of Rhizobium and dual inoculation of mycorrhiza and Rhizobium on nodule number, nodule weight, leaf N and N uptake of chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobium alone and dual inoculation did not differ significantly for chickpea leaf N and N uptake.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- single inoculation of Rhizobiume0
- Outcome
- leaf N and N uptakee0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Comparator
- dual inoculation of mycorrhiza and Rhizobiume0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was no significant difference between the effect of single inoculation of Rhizobium and dual inoculation of mycorrhiza and Rhizobium on nodule number, nodule weight, leaf N and N uptake of chickpea”
The same questions in other papers
Rhizobium · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
25 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →Rhizobium · symbiosis · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
51 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →fertilization · disease · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →inoculation · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 papers →fertilization · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
98 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
101 papers more in this group
See all 105 papers →inoculation · symbiosis · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 110 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
110 papers more in this group
See all 114 papers →inoculation · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
134 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
148 papers more in this group
See all 152 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.