Paper · 2024 · PLANT ARCHIVES

EFFECT OF BIOFERTILIZERS (RHIZOBIUM AND PSB) WITH AND WITHOUT MOLYBDENUM ON BIOMASS PRODUCTION, UPTAKE AND QUALITY OF CHICKPEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.)

9
claims
17
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The use of effective bio-inoculants in chickpea cultivation is a potential strategy to improve biomass yield and nutrient absorption in rainfed conditions.This research assessed the effects of biofertilizers, namely Rhizobium and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB), in conjunction with molybdenum on nutrient absorption and quality metrics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.).Field experiment was executed during the rabi season of 2020-21 at the Research Farm, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, JNKVV, Jabalpur.The trial had a randomized block design including 10 treatments, each replicated three times.The treatments included different combinations of Rhizobium (10 g, 15 g, and 20 g), PSB (20 g), and ammonium molybdate (0.5 g and 1 g) per kilogram of seed, alongside a control group for comparison.The findings indicated that the treatment including Rhizobium, PSB, and molybdenum (1g kg -1 seed) yielded the most substantial enhancements in biomass production and nutrient absorption.Nitrogen intake was 61.29 kg ha -1 in seeds and 26.20 kg ha -1 in stover, while phosphorus uptake was 6.68 kg ha -1 in seeds and 8.77 kg ha -1 in stover.This treatment resulted in the greatest protein concentration in chickpea seed, reaching a maximum of 22.86%.Moreover, the integration of biofertilizers and molybdenum enhanced Sulphur absorption in both seeds (2.77 kg ha -1 ) and stover (4.73 kg ha -1 ), surpassing treatments devoid of molybdenum.The results indicate that using biofertilizers in combination with molybdenum offers a sustainable approach to improving the nutritional content and yield of chickpea in rainfed environments, especially on Vertisol soils.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rhizobium, PSB and molybdenum treatment gave the greatest enhancement in chickpea biomass production.

Taxon
CHICKPEACicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Rhizobium, PSB, and molybdenum (1g kg -1 seed)e0
Interactor
RhizobiumRhizobiume0symbiont
Second interactor
PSBe0symbiont
Outcome
biomass productione0
Direction
enhancementse0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Rhizobium
Rhizobium · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ninjatacoshell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The findings indicated that the treatment including Rhizobium, PSB, and molybdenum (1g kg -1 seed) yielded the most substantial enhancements in biomass production and nutrient absorption.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 791–978 · show in text ↑
t0

“CHICKPEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–147 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rhizobium, PSB and molybdenum treatment gave the greatest enhancement in chickpea nutrient absorption.

Taxon
CHICKPEACicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Rhizobium, PSB, and molybdenum (1g kg -1 seed)e0
Interactor
RhizobiumRhizobiume0symbiont
Second interactor
PSBe0symbiont
Outcome
nutrient absorptione0
Direction
enhancementse0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Rhizobium
Rhizobium · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ninjatacoshell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The findings indicated that the treatment including Rhizobium, PSB, and molybdenum (1g kg -1 seed) yielded the most substantial enhancements in biomass production and nutrient absorption.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 791–978 · show in text ↑
t0

“CHICKPEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–147 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated chickpea seeds had 61.29 kg ha -1 Nitrogen intake.

Taxon
CHICKPEACicer arietinumt0
Organ / stage
seedse0
Outcome
Nitrogen intakee0
Value
61.29 kg ha -1e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Nitrogen intake was 61.29 kg ha -1 in seeds and 26.20 kg ha -1 in stover”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 978–1050 · show in text ↑
t0

“CHICKPEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–147 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated chickpea stover had 26.20 kg ha -1 Nitrogen intake.

Taxon
CHICKPEACicer arietinumt0
Organ / stage
stovere0
Outcome
Nitrogen intakee0
Value
26.20 kg ha -1e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Nitrogen intake was 61.29 kg ha -1 in seeds and 26.20 kg ha -1 in stover”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 978–1050 · show in text ↑
t0

“CHICKPEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–147 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated chickpea seeds had 6.68 kg ha -1 phosphorus uptake.

Taxon
CHICKPEACicer arietinumt0
Organ / stage
seedse0
Outcome
phosphorus uptakee0
Value
6.68 kg ha -1e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“phosphorus uptake was 6.68 kg ha -1 in seeds and 8.77 kg ha -1 in stover”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1058–1130 · show in text ↑
t0

“CHICKPEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–147 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated chickpea stover had 8.77 kg ha -1 phosphorus uptake.

Taxon
CHICKPEACicer arietinumt0
Organ / stage
stovere0
Outcome
phosphorus uptakee0
Value
8.77 kg ha -1e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“phosphorus uptake was 6.68 kg ha -1 in seeds and 8.77 kg ha -1 in stover”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1058–1130 · show in text ↑
t0

“CHICKPEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–147 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated chickpea seeds had 2.77 kg ha -1 Sulphur absorption.

Taxon
CHICKPEACicer arietinumt0
Organ / stage
seedse0
Outcome
Sulphur absorptione0
Value
2.77 kg ha -1e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the integration of biofertilizers and molybdenum enhanced Sulphur absorption in both seeds (2.77 kg ha -1 ) and stover (4.73 kg ha -1 ), surpassing treatments devoid of molybdenum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1250–1429 · show in text ↑
t0

“CHICKPEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–147 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated chickpea stover had 4.73 kg ha -1 Sulphur absorption.

Taxon
CHICKPEACicer arietinumt0
Organ / stage
stovere0
Outcome
Sulphur absorptione0
Value
4.73 kg ha -1e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the integration of biofertilizers and molybdenum enhanced Sulphur absorption in both seeds (2.77 kg ha -1 ) and stover (4.73 kg ha -1 ), surpassing treatments devoid of molybdenum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1250–1429 · show in text ↑
t0

“CHICKPEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–147 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The combined treatment produced the greatest chickpea seed protein concentration, 22.86%.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Organ / stage
seede0
Treatment
This treatmente0
Outcome
protein concentratione0
Direction
greateste0
Value
22.86%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“This treatment resulted in the greatest protein concentration in chickpea seed, reaching a maximum of 22.86%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1131–1240 · show in text ↑

molybdenum atom · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ

31 papers: 29 positive, 2 negative or no effect

28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 papers →

Rhizobium · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ

120 papers: 116 positive, 4 negative or no effect

115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

116 papers more in this group

See all 120 papers →

Rhizobium · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

26 papers: 25 positive, 1 negative or no effect

24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

22 papers more in this group

See all 26 papers →

molybdenum atom · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

phosphorus · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

38 papers: 37 positive, 1 negative or no effect

36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

34 papers more in this group

See all 38 papers →

inoculation · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

63 papers: 57 positive, 6 negative or no effect

56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

59 papers more in this group

See all 63 papers →

phosphorus · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

168 papers: 161 positive, 7 negative or no effect

160 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

164 papers more in this group

See all 168 papers →

inoculation · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

217 papers: 200 positive, 17 negative or no effect

199 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

213 papers more in this group

See all 217 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.