inoculation · Nutrient: content · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)
28 claims from these papers; 1 citation between them.
Papers here report positive and negative or no-effect results. No pair of them has been accepted in the claim-by-claim check.
How these papers cite each other
1 citation between these papers: 1 on the same side, 0 across the two sides.
- Positive result
- Negative result or no effect
- Citation, pointing to the cited paper
- Citation across the two sides
- Larger circle: more citations overall
Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.
Papers reporting a positive result 15
Response of Pearl Millet Cultivars to Inoculation with Nitrogen-fixing Bacteria · 1985
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Penicillium purpurogenum, Unique P Mobilizers in Arid Agro-Ecosystems · 2011
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Pseudomonas striatafor Improving Phosphorus Availability in Soil under Pearl Millet Cultivation · 2013
- positive
Effect of Azotobacter on growth, yield and quality of pearl millet · 2017
- positive
Integrated nutrient management in pearlmillet (Pennisetum glaucum) in north-western Rajasthan · 2018
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 1
A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.