Abstract
The experiments were conducted in an organically cultivated rice field in 2021 and 2022 to investigate the effects of applying Italian ryegrass as a cover crop in combination with the microbial inoculant ‘Inefaita’ (IF), which contains an endophytic bacterium belonging to genus Azospirillum as plant growth-promoting bacteria. The rice field was subjected to four treatments: cover crop incorporated treatment without IF inoculation (CC), cover crop incorporated treatment with IF inoculation (CC/IF), fallow treatment without IF inoculation (FA), and fallow treatment with IF inoculation (FA/IF). To characterize the structure of microbial communities in rice root-associated soil under the CC and FA treatments (excluding CC/IF and FA/IF), meta amplicon – sequencing based on the prokaryotic 16S rRNA gene was performed. The relative abundance of the dominant phyla in the bacteria was: Proteobacteria (CC 36.6%, FA 33.6%) and Acidobacteria (CC 19.5%, FA 19.7%). This content of Proteobacteria was significantly higher in the CC than in the FA group. There was no significant difference in the relative abundance of the dominant archaeal phyla Nanoarchaeota (CC 50.8%, FA 54.1%) and Crenarchaeota (CC 38.0%, FA 33.3%) between CC and FA. These results indicate that prokaryotic communities in the rice field may be affected by CC management. Additionally, the ANOVA revealed no significant positive effects of CC on rice yield, while IF inoculation had a significant positive effect on yield. Furthermore, there were significant interactions between CC and IF on spikelet number and yield. The CC/IF yield was 4.1% higher than that of the CC in 2021 and 5.9% lower in 2022, whereas that of the FA/IF was 42.5% higher than that of FA in 2021 and 12.1% higher in 2022. Therefore, a positive effect of IF inoculation on yield was observed in FA. Although CC application affected the structure of soil microbial communities, its combination with IF inoculation did not increase rice yield.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop management gave a significantly higher Proteobacteria content in rice root-associated soil than fallow.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae0 - Organ / stage
- rice root-associated soile0
- Treatment
- CCe1
- Outcome
- content of Proteobacteriae1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- FA groupe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“To characterize the structure of microbial communities in rice root-associated soil under the CC and FA treatments”
e1“This content of Proteobacteria was significantly higher in the CC than in the FA group”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop management did not change the relative abundance of Nanoarchaeota in rice root-associated soil compared with fallow.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- CCe2
- Outcome
- Nanoarchaeotae2
- Direction
- no significant differencee2
- Value
- CC 50.8%, FA 54.1%e2
- Comparator
- FAe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“To characterize the structure of microbial communities in rice root-associated soil under the CC and FA treatments”
e2“There was no significant difference in the relative abundance of the dominant archaeal phyla Nanoarchaeota (CC 50.8%, FA 54.1%) and Crenarchaeota (CC 38.0%, FA 33.3%) between CC and FA”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop management did not change the relative abundance of Crenarchaeota in rice root-associated soil compared with fallow.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- CCe2
- Outcome
- Crenarchaeotae2
- Direction
- no significant differencee2
- Value
- CC 38.0%, FA 33.3%e2
- Comparator
- FAe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“To characterize the structure of microbial communities in rice root-associated soil under the CC and FA treatments”
e2“There was no significant difference in the relative abundance of the dominant archaeal phyla Nanoarchaeota (CC 50.8%, FA 54.1%) and Crenarchaeota (CC 38.0%, FA 33.3%) between CC and FA”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop management had no significant positive effect on rice yield.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- CCe3
- Outcome
- rice yielde3
- Direction
- no significant positive effectse3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“To characterize the structure of microbial communities in rice root-associated soil under the CC and FA treatments”
e3“the ANOVA revealed no significant positive effects of CC on rice yield, while IF inoculation had a significant positive effect on yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with the Azospirillum-based inoculant had a significant positive effect on rice yield.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- IF inoculatione3
- Interactor
- Azospirillum
Azospirillume4symbiont - Outcome
- yielde3
- Direction
- significant positive effecte3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“To characterize the structure of microbial communities in rice root-associated soil under the CC and FA treatments”
e3“the ANOVA revealed no significant positive effects of CC on rice yield, while IF inoculation had a significant positive effect on yield”
e4“which contains an endophytic bacterium belonging to genus Azospirillum as plant growth-promoting bacteria”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop and inoculant interacted significantly on spikelet number and yield of rice.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- CC and IFe5
- Outcome
- spikelet number and yielde5
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“To characterize the structure of microbial communities in rice root-associated soil under the CC and FA treatments”
e5“there were significant interactions between CC and IF on spikelet number and yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop with inoculant yielded 4.1% more rice than cover crop alone in 2021.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- CC/IFe6
- Outcome
- yielde6
- Direction
- highere6
- Value
- 4.1%e6
- Comparator
- the CCe6
- Setting
- 2021e6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“To characterize the structure of microbial communities in rice root-associated soil under the CC and FA treatments”
e6“The CC/IF yield was 4.1% higher than that of the CC in 2021 and 5.9% lower in 2022, whereas that of the FA/IF was 42.5% higher than that of FA in 2021 and 12.1% higher in 2022”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop with inoculant yielded 5.9% less rice than cover crop alone in 2022.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- CC/IFe6
- Outcome
- yielde6
- Direction
- lowere6
- Value
- 5.9%e6
- Comparator
- the CCe6
- Setting
- 2022e6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“To characterize the structure of microbial communities in rice root-associated soil under the CC and FA treatments”
e6“The CC/IF yield was 4.1% higher than that of the CC in 2021 and 5.9% lower in 2022, whereas that of the FA/IF was 42.5% higher than that of FA in 2021 and 12.1% higher in 2022”
Claim · model-written summary
Fallow with inoculant yielded 42.5% more rice than fallow alone in 2021.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- FA/IFe6
- Outcome
- yielde6
- Direction
- highere6
- Value
- 42.5%e6
- Comparator
- FAe6
- Setting
- 2021e6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“To characterize the structure of microbial communities in rice root-associated soil under the CC and FA treatments”
e6“The CC/IF yield was 4.1% higher than that of the CC in 2021 and 5.9% lower in 2022, whereas that of the FA/IF was 42.5% higher than that of FA in 2021 and 12.1% higher in 2022”
Claim · model-written summary
Fallow with inoculant yielded 12.1% more rice than fallow alone in 2022.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- FA/IFe6
- Outcome
- yielde6
- Direction
- highere6
- Value
- 12.1%e6
- Comparator
- FAe6
- Setting
- 2022e6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“To characterize the structure of microbial communities in rice root-associated soil under the CC and FA treatments”
e6“The CC/IF yield was 4.1% higher than that of the CC in 2021 and 5.9% lower in 2022, whereas that of the FA/IF was 42.5% higher than that of FA in 2021 and 12.1% higher in 2022”
Claim · model-written summary
Combining cover crop with inoculant did not increase rice yield.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- combination with IF inoculatione7
- Outcome
- rice yielde7
- Direction
- did not increasee7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“To characterize the structure of microbial communities in rice root-associated soil under the CC and FA treatments”
e7“Although CC application affected the structure of soil microbial communities, its combination with IF inoculation did not increase rice yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop application affected the structure of soil microbial communities in rice fields.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- CC applicatione7
- Outcome
- structure of soil microbial communitiese7
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“To characterize the structure of microbial communities in rice root-associated soil under the CC and FA treatments”
e7“Although CC application affected the structure of soil microbial communities, its combination with IF inoculation did not increase rice yield”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 382 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
414 papers more in this group
See all 418 papers →inoculation · Azospirillum · Oryza sativa (rice)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- 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.