Abstract
A field experiment on “Implication of microbial formulations on biomass and yield of chickpea” was carried out during Kharif 2023 under the Department of Agricultural Microbiology, College of Agriculture, Navile, Shivamogga, KSNUAHS, Shivamogga, and Karnataka. The experiment was laid out under randomized block design (RBD) with 3 replications consisted of 9 treatments viz.,T1 = RDF, T2 = 100% N & K + 100% P as RP, T3 = 100% N & K + 75% P as RP, T4 = 100% N & K + 100% P as RP + Biophos + , T5 = 100% N & K + 75% P as RP + Biophos + , T6 = 100% N & K + 100% P as RP + UAHS PSB – 3, T7 = 100% N & K + 75% P as RP + UAHS PSB – 3, T8 = 100% N & K + 100% P as RP + UAHS PSB – 3 + Biophos + and T9 = 100% N & K + 75% P as RP + UAHS PSB – 3 + Biophos + comprising beneficial microorganisms of Biophos + and UAHS PSB - 3 applied as seed treatments. Results revealed that the significant improvement was noticed in plant growth and yield attributes. Among the different phosphate solubilizing microbial cultures treated, treatment received 100% N & K + 75% P as RP + UAHS PSB – 3 + Biophos + recorded significantly higher (2157.4 kg ha-1) and it was on par with the treatment receiving 100% N & K + 100% P as RP + UAHS PSB – 3 + Biophos + (2141.9 kg ha-1), similar trend was noticed in terms of yield parameters. Scale of studies and further required to evaluate the efficient liquid formulation of the efficient phosphate solubilizing microbial consortia (UAHS PSB – 3 and Biophos +) along with other PGPRs like Azotobacter, Potassium solubilizing microorganisms, biocontrol agents for sustainable crop production in multilocation farm trials using farmers participatory approach.
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 3
Claim · model-written summary
Microbial culture treatments significantly improved chickpea growth and yield attributes.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinumt0 - Treatment
- microbial formulationst0
- Outcome
- plant growth and yield attributese0
- Direction
- improvemente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results revealed that the significant improvement was noticed in plant growth and yield attributes.”
t0“microbial formulations on biomass and yield of chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
The 75% P microbial formulation produced a significantly higher chickpea yield of 2157.4 kg ha-1.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- 100% N & K + 75% P as RP + UAHS PSB – 3 + Biophos +e0
- Outcome
- yield of chickpeat0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2157.4 kg ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- 2141.9 kg ha-1e0
- Comparator
- 100% N & K + 100% P as RP + UAHS PSB – 3 + Biophos +e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“treatment received 100% N & K + 75% P as RP + UAHS PSB – 3 + Biophos + recorded significantly higher (2157.4 kg ha-1) and it was on par with the treatment receiving 100% N & K + 100% P as RP + UAHS PSB – 3 + Biophos + (2141.9 kg ha-1)”
t0“yield of chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
The 100% P microbial formulation produced a comparable chickpea yield of 2141.9 kg ha-1.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- 100% N & K + 100% P as RP + UAHS PSB – 3 + Biophos +e0
- Outcome
- yield of chickpeat0
- Direction
- on pare0
- Value
- 2141.9 kg ha-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it was on par with the treatment receiving 100% N & K + 100% P as RP + UAHS PSB – 3 + Biophos + (2141.9 kg ha-1)”
t0“yield of chickpea”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
92 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
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.