Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26638970›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2016

Exploring the efficacy of wastewater-grown microalgal biomass as a biofertilizer for wheat.

Nirmal Renuka, Radha Prasanna, Anjuli Sood, Amrik S Ahluwalia, Radhika Bansal, Santosh Babu, Rajendra Singh, Yashbir S Shivay, Lata Nain

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Mechanisms ofFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Application of microalgaeFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nirmal RenukaDepartment of Botany, Panjab University, Chandigarh, 160014, India.
Radha PrasannaDivision of Microbiology, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012, India. radhapr@gmail.com.
Anjuli SoodDivision of Microbiology, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012, India.
Amrik S AhluwaliaDepartment of Botany, Panjab University, Chandigarh, 160014, India.
Radhika BansalDivision of Agronomy, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012, India.
Santosh BabuDivision of Microbiology, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012, India.
Rajendra SinghWater Technology Centre, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012, India.
Yashbir S ShivayDivision of Agronomy, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012, India.
Lata NainDivision of Microbiology, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microalgae possess the ability to grow and glean nutrients from wastewater; such wastewater-grown biomass can be used as a biofertilizer for crops. The present investigation was undertaken to evaluate two formulations (formulation with unicellular microalgae (MC1) and formulation with filamentous microalgae (MC2); T4 and T5, respectively), prepared using wastewater-grown microalgal biomass, as a biofertilizer (after mixing with vermiculite/compost as a carrier) in wheat crop (Triticum aestivum L. HD2967) under controlled conditions. The highest values of available nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) in soil and nitrogen-fixing potential were recorded in treatment T5 (75% N + full-dose PK + formulation with filamentous microalgae (MC2). Microbial biomass carbon was significantly enhanced by 31.8-67.0% in both the inoculated treatments over control (recommended dose of fertilizers), with highest values in T4 (75% N + full-dose PK + formulation with unicellular microalgae (MC1)). Both the microalgal formulations significantly increased the N, P, and K content of roots, shoots, and grains, and the highest total N content of 3.56% in grains was observed in treatment T5. At harvest stage, the treatments inoculated with microalgal formulations (T4 and T5) recorded a 7.4-33% increase in plant dry weight and up to 10% in spike weight. The values of 1000-grain weight showed an enhancement of 5.6-8.4%, compared with T1 (recommended doses of fertilizers). A positive correlation was observed between soil nutrient availability at mid crop stage and plant biometrical parameters at harvest stage. This study revealed the promise of such microalgal consortia as a biofertilizer for 25% N savings and improved yields of wheat crop.

Indexed as

WastewaterBiomassCarbonCrops, AgriculturalFertilizersMicroalgaeNitrogenPhosphorusSoilTriticumCarbonFertilizersNitrogenPhosphorusSoilWastewaterMicroalgaeMicrobial biomass carbonNutrient availabilityPlant nutritionSoil fertilityYield

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.