Paper · 2025 · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Evaluation of Seven Elite Rhizobial Inoculants on It99k5731-1 Cowpea Variety in Soils of Minna Niger State of Nigeria

AHAR, J. I.; OSUNDE, A.O.; BALA, A.

8
claims
17
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract— Cowpea (Vigna unguiculataL. Walp) is an important source of dietary protein for man, animals and improves soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation. However, its production potential is limited by a number of factors, one which may be low availability of Nitrogen in the soil which could partly be due to the inadequate numbers of effective rhizobial strains in some soils to fix the required nitrogen. Evaluation of seven rhizobial strains was carried out on yield and yield parameters of cowpea variety IT99K573-1-1 during the cropping season. Prior to the commencement of the trial, soil samples were collected (0 -15cm2) from each filed and processed for routine soil analysis. The field trials were conducted in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with nine treatments replicated at five different locations in Minna. Each of the treatment plots was 36m2 consisting of six manually made ridges of 6m long and an inter-ridge spacing of 80cm. The treatments were; control (no inoculation nor N fertilizer), 60kgNha-1, rhizobial inoculants strains 2NAG53e, 2NAG91a, 2NAG9d, 2NAG5261, CB756 (ref), BR3262(ref) and BR3267(ref). Cowpea seeds were mixed with the inoculants as treatment at planting. All plots received a dose of 30kgPha-1 (as Single Super Phosphate) at planting. Destructive sampling was done at 50% flowering to obtain data on number of nodules, nodules dry weight and shoot dry weight. Data was collected for Pod load, pod weight, 100 seed weight, and grain yield at full maturity. From the fertility and suitability rating all the fields had one or two limiting factor for crop production. There was a significant difference between 2NAG5261and the 60kgNha-1 treatment but all treatments were not significantly different from the control in terms of number of nodules. However, there was no significant difference at (P<0.05) in all inoculated plants, urea fertilized plants and the control. Statistically, there was also, no significant difference at (P<0.05) in all inoculated plants, urea fertilized plants and the control in terms of nodule dry weight. There was a significant different (P<0.05) between strain 2NAG9d and BR3267(ref) but there was no significant different between the control and all the inoculated plants in shoot dry weight. Higher mean value obtained from plants treated with 2NAG9d, indicated percentage increase in shoot dry weight but was not significantly different from the control and the urea supplied plants. Means of statistical analysis indicated no significant difference (P<0.05) for pod weight per plant among all the treatments and the control. The 60kgNha1 treatments, rhizobia strains CB756(ref), 2NAG91a 2NAG53e, and 2NAG9d gave the highest mean values of (1067.2kg, 883.9kg, 878.9kg, 832.8kg and 819.4kg) respectively which were more than the control that had a mean value of 769.4kg. Statistically, there was no significant difference between the control and other treatments. There was no response to inoculation in terms number of nodules, nodules dry weight, shoot dry weight, pod weight per plant, pod weight per kilogram per hectare, one hundred seed weight and total grain yield of IT99K-573-1-1 cowpea variety. The evaluation of these inoculants should also be conducted using other cowpea varieties and other legumes in other places outside Minna in order to capture the differences that may exist in physical, chemical and biological properties of soils because inability of cowpea to respond to inoculation could be attributed not only to the crop variety but also environmental conditions and can be site specific.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

2NAG5261 differed significantly in nodule number from the 60 kg N/ha treatment in cowpea.

Treatment
2NAG5261e1
Interactor
2NAG5261e1symbiont
Outcome
number of nodulese1
Comparator
60kgNha-1 treatmente1
Setting
five different locations in Minnae3

Not reportedDirection

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“There was a significant difference between 2NAG5261and the 60kgNha-1 treatment but all treatments were not significantly different from the control in terms of number of nodules”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1632–1809 · show in text ↑
e2

“Cowpea (Vigna unguiculataL. Walp)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 10–43 · show in text ↑
e3

“The field trials were conducted in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with nine treatments replicated at five different locations in Minna”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 702–845 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Strain 2NAG9d differed significantly from strain BR3267(ref) in cowpea shoot dry weight.

Treatment
2NAG9de1
Interactor
2NAG9de1symbiont
Outcome
shoot dry weighte1
Comparator
BR3267(ref)e1

Not reportedDirection

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“There was a significant different (P<0.05) between strain 2NAG9d and BR3267(ref) but there was no significant different between the control and all the inoculated plants in shoot dry weight”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2099–2288 · show in text ↑
e2

“Cowpea (Vigna unguiculataL. Walp)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 10–43 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Strain 2NAG9d gave a non-significant percentage increase in cowpea shoot dry weight relative to the control.

Treatment
2NAG9de1
Interactor
2NAG9de1symbiont
Outcome
shoot dry weighte1
Direction
increasee1
Comparator
the controle1

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Higher mean value obtained from plants treated with 2NAG9d, indicated percentage increase in shoot dry weight but was not significantly different from the control and the urea supplied plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2290–2481 · show in text ↑
e2

“Cowpea (Vigna unguiculataL. Walp)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 10–43 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculated cowpea plants did not differ from the control in nodule dry weight.

Treatment
inoculated plantse1
Outcome
nodule dry weighte1
Direction
no_changeinferrede1
Comparator
the controle1

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“no significant difference at (P<0.05) in all inoculated plants, urea fertilized plants and the control in terms of nodule dry weight”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1965–2097 · show in text ↑
e2

“Cowpea (Vigna unguiculataL. Walp)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 10–43 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculated cowpea plants did not differ from the control in number of nodules.

Treatment
all treatmentse1
Outcome
number of nodulese1
Direction
no_changeinferrede1
Comparator
the controle1

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“There was a significant difference between 2NAG5261and the 60kgNha-1 treatment but all treatments were not significantly different from the control in terms of number of nodules”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1632–1809 · show in text ↑
e2

“Cowpea (Vigna unguiculataL. Walp)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 10–43 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation did not change cowpea pod weight per plant relative to the control.

Treatment
all the treatmentse1
Outcome
pod weight per plante1
Direction
no_changeinferrede1
Comparator
the controle1

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Means of statistical analysis indicated no significant difference (P<0.05) for pod weight per plant among all the treatments and the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2483–2623 · show in text ↑
e2

“Cowpea (Vigna unguiculataL. Walp)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 10–43 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The 60 kg N/ha treatment and four rhizobial strains gave higher mean values than the control in cowpea, without a significant difference.

Treatment
60kgNha1 treatments, rhizobia strains CB756(ref), 2NAG91a 2NAG53e, and 2NAG9de1
Outcome
mean valuese1
Direction
more thane1
Value
1067.2kg, 883.9kg, 878.9kg, 832.8kg and 819.4kge1
Comparator
the controle1

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The 60kgNha1 treatments, rhizobia strains CB756(ref), 2NAG91a 2NAG53e, and 2NAG9d gave the highest mean values of (1067.2kg, 883.9kg, 878.9kg, 832.8kg and 819.4kg) respectively which were more than the control that had a mean value of 769.4kg”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2625–2867 · show in text ↑
e2

“Cowpea (Vigna unguiculataL. Walp)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 10–43 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation gave no response in cowpea pod weight per kilogram per hectare, 100-seed weight and total grain yield.

Treatment
inoculatione1
Outcome
pod weight per kilogram per hectare, one hundred seed weight and total grain yielde1
Direction
no_changeinferrede1
Comparator
control (no inoculation nor N fertilizer)e2

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“There was no response to inoculation in terms number of nodules, nodules dry weight, shoot dry weight, pod weight per plant, pod weight per kilogram per hectare, one hundred seed weight and total grain yield of IT99K-573-1-1 cowpea variety”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2962–3201 · show in text ↑
e2

“control (no inoculation nor N fertilizer)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 991–1032 · show in text ↑

inoculation · symbiosis · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results differ

69 papers: 57 positive, 12 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 57 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

65 papers more in this group

See all 69 papers →

inoculation · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results differ

116 papers: 99 positive, 17 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 99 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

112 papers more in this group

See all 116 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.