Abstract
Field experiments were conducted in acrisol, ferrasol and fluvisol soils in the Easthern region and Mekong delta of the south of Vietnam to evaluate nodulation and yield of ‘promiscuous’ soybean lines from Africa in the presence and absence of inoculation, and the efficacy of liquid formulations as an alternative to peat-based inoculants. Both the ‘promiscuous’ lines and the liquid inoculants represented technologies that might have relevance for the farmer of Vietnam. Notwithstanding individual treatment effects, responses to rhizobial inoculation were observed in each of the six experiments of this study. Responses on the acrisol and alluvial soils were large, up to 40-fold increases in nodulation and 87% and 51% increases in shoot DM and grain yield, respectively. All four sites were new to soybean. Inoculation responses were even recorded at the ferrasol sites, both of which were on old soybean land. In the two experiments for which we had N fixation data, inoculation increased total N fixed by as much as 400%. Although successful in Africa, the ‘promiscuous’ lines did not nodulate well in the absence of inoculation and showed substantial increases in nodulation and yield when inoculated. Responses were similar to the responses of the local cultivars. The second technology related to media formulation used to produce the inoculant rhizobia and to deliver them to the legume seed. The different growth formulations (G5, G6 and YEM) were similarly effective as were the two methods of delivery, peat and liquid. Future utilisation of liquid inoculants in Vietnam will depend to a large extent on demonstrated benefits in the manufacturing process and in inoculant distribution. Farmer acceptance will most likely be the ultimate determinant of their future. TECHNOLOGY that has been developed in the technically-advanced countries may not be immediately appropriate to the smallholder farmers in the less-developed countries. Rhizobial inoculation of legumes is one such technology. It is not the price of the product that is the problem; rather the problems relate to quality and availability in the market place. In Vietnam, the current production and distribution of inoculants may only be sufficient for about 1000 ha, far less than the quantity required to inoculate the 700,000 ha of legumes currently grown each year in the country. Vietnamese farmers fertilise their legume crops with N instead of inoculating, a practice that adds US$25–30 million annually to their cost of production and to Vietnam’s import account. Inoculation, on the other hand, would cost the farmers only about US$1 million annually and they would be supporting a local industry. Responses to inoculation in research experiments in the country show clearly that inoculation is justified, at least in soil that has never grown the legume before or has not grown the legume for many years (Tran Phuoc Duong et al. 1984; Cao Ngoc Diep et al. 1996; Pham Thi Phuong Lan et al. 1999; Tran Yen Thao 1997, 2001). It is also beneficial in soils that are marginal for survival of the rhizobia, e.g. very acid soils. What is needed is research to develop inoculant-production technology that is relevant to the needs to of the country an to extend the message to farmers that inoculating rather than fertilising legumes with N should lead to greater profitability. In addition to enhancing the country’s inoculant technology, other strategies should be explored that might reduce legume cropping dependence on either fertiliser N or inoculants. 1 Oil Plant Institute of Vietnam, 171–175 Ham Nghi St., District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, VN 2 Department of Tropical Plant and Soil Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Paia, HI 96779 USA 3 NSW Agriculture, TCCI, Tamworth, NSW 2340, Australia
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Responses to rhizobial inoculation were observed in each of the six experiments
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxt0 - Interactor
- rhizobiae2symbiont
- Outcome
- responses to rhizobial inoculatione2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Inoculation responses of soybean”
e2“Notwithstanding individual treatment effects, responses to rhizobial inoculation were observed in each of the six experiments of this study”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobial inoculation increased soybean nodulation up to 40-fold on acrisol and alluvial soils
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- rhizobial inoculatione2
- Interactor
- rhizobiae2symbiont
- Outcome
- nodulatione1
- Direction
- increasese1
- Value
- 40-folde1
- Comparator
- absence of inoculatione7
- Setting
- acrisol and alluvial soilse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Inoculation responses of soybean”
e1“Responses on the acrisol and alluvial soils were large, up to 40-fold increases in nodulation and 87% and 51% increases in shoot DM and grain yield, respectively”
e2“Notwithstanding individual treatment effects, responses to rhizobial inoculation were observed in each of the six experiments of this study”
e7“in the presence and absence of inoculation”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobial inoculation increased soybean shoot dry matter by 87% on acrisol and alluvial soils
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- rhizobial inoculatione2
- Interactor
- rhizobiae2symbiont
- Outcome
- shoot DMe1
- Direction
- increasese1
- Value
- 87%e1
- Comparator
- absence of inoculatione7
- Setting
- acrisol and alluvial soilse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Inoculation responses of soybean”
e1“Responses on the acrisol and alluvial soils were large, up to 40-fold increases in nodulation and 87% and 51% increases in shoot DM and grain yield, respectively”
e2“Notwithstanding individual treatment effects, responses to rhizobial inoculation were observed in each of the six experiments of this study”
e7“in the presence and absence of inoculation”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobial inoculation increased soybean grain yield by 51% on acrisol and alluvial soils
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- rhizobial inoculatione2
- Interactor
- rhizobiae2symbiont
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- increasese1
- Value
- 51%e1
- Comparator
- absence of inoculatione7
- Setting
- acrisol and alluvial soilse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Inoculation responses of soybean”
e1“Responses on the acrisol and alluvial soils were large, up to 40-fold increases in nodulation and 87% and 51% increases in shoot DM and grain yield, respectively”
e2“Notwithstanding individual treatment effects, responses to rhizobial inoculation were observed in each of the six experiments of this study”
e7“in the presence and absence of inoculation”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation increased total N fixed by as much as 400% in soybean
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- inoculatione3
- Interactor
- rhizobiae2symbiont
- Outcome
- total N fixede3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 400%e3
- Qualifier
- as much ase3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Inoculation responses of soybean”
e2“Notwithstanding individual treatment effects, responses to rhizobial inoculation were observed in each of the six experiments of this study”
e3“inoculation increased total N fixed by as much as 400%”
Claim · model-written summary
Promiscuous soybean lines did not nodulate well without inoculation and showed increases in nodulation and yield when inoculated
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- inoculatione4
- Outcome
- nodulation and yielde4
- Direction
- increasese4
- Comparator
- absence of inoculatione4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Inoculation responses of soybean”
e4“did not nodulate well in the absence of inoculation and showed substantial increases in nodulation and yield when inoculated”
Claim · model-written summary
Responses of promiscuous soybean lines to inoculation were similar to those of local cultivars
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Outcome
- Responsese5
- Direction
- similare5
- Comparator
- local cultivarse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Inoculation responses of soybean”
e5“Responses were similar to the responses of the local cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth formulations G5, G6 and YEM were similarly effective for inoculant rhizobia
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- growth formulations (G5, G6 and YEM)e6
- Outcome
- effectivee6
- Direction
- similarlye6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Inoculation responses of soybean”
e6“The different growth formulations (G5, G6 and YEM) were similarly effective as were the two methods of delivery, peat and liquid”
Claim · model-written summary
Peat and liquid delivery methods for inoculant were similarly effective
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- two methods of delivery, peat and liquide6
- Outcome
- effectivee6
- Direction
- similarlye6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Inoculation responses of soybean”
e6“The different growth formulations (G5, G6 and YEM) were similarly effective as were the two methods of delivery, peat and liquid”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation responses were recorded at the Ferrasol sites
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Outcome
- Inoculation responsese1
- Setting
- ferrasol sitese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Inoculation responses of soybean”
e1“Inoculation responses were even recorded at the ferrasol sites”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · nutrient: content · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
169 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
175 papers more in this group
See all 179 papers →inoculation · symbiosis · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
264 papers in the same direction as this paper · 43 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
306 papers more in this group
See all 310 papers →inoculation · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
490 papers in the same direction as this paper · 63 in the opposite direction · 12 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
562 papers more in this group
See all 566 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.