Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32244470›Full record

ArticleMicroorganisms2020

The Effect of Biochars and Endophytic Bacteria on Growth and Root Rot Disease Incidence of

Dilfuza Egamberdieva, Vyacheslav Shurigin, Burak Alaylar, Hua Ma, Marina E H Müller, Stephan Wirth, Moritz Reckling, Sonoko Dorothea Bellingrath-Kimura

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microorganisms, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. The diversity of bacterial endophytes fromCurrent research in microbial sciences · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Dilfuza EgamberdievaLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), 15374 Müncheberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9811-9277
Vyacheslav ShuriginFaculty of Biology, National University of Uzbekistan, Tashkent 100174, Uzbekistan.ORCID 0000-0002-5495-0373
Burak AlaylarFaculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Agri Ibrahim Cecen University, 04100 Agri, Turkey.
Hua MaLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), 15374 Müncheberg, Germany.
Marina E H MüllerLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), 15374 Müncheberg, Germany.
Stephan WirthLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), 15374 Müncheberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2261-8771
Moritz RecklingLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), 15374 Müncheberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0689-7686
Sonoko Dorothea Bellingrath-KimuraLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), 15374 Müncheberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7392-7796
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research · DEAğrı İbrahim Çeçen University · TRHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DENational University of Uzbekistan · UZ

Funding

Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung Georg Foster FellowshipChinese Academy of Sciences 2018VBA002S
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The effects of biochar on plant growth vary depending on the applied biochar type, study site environmental conditions, microbial species, and plant-microbial interactions. The objectives of the present study were therefore to assess 1) the response of growth parameters of lupin and root disease incidence to the application of three biochar types in a loamy sandy soil, and 2) the role of endophytic bacteria in biological control of root rot disease incidence in lupin after the amendment of soil with different biochar types. As biochar types we tested (i) hydrochar (HTC) from maize silage, (ii) pyrolysis char from maize (MBC), and (iii) pyrolysis char from wood (WBC) at three different concentrations (1%, 2%, and 3% of char as soil amendments). There were no significant effects in lupin shoot and root growth in soils amended with WBC at any of the concentrations. MBC did not affect plant growth except for root dry weight at 2% MBC. HTC char at 2% concentration, significantly increased the root dry weight of lupin by 54-75%, and shoot dry weight by 21-25%. Lupin plants grown in soil amended with 2% and 3% WBC and MBC chars showed 40-50% and 10-20% disease symptoms, respectively. Plants grown in soil without biochar and with HTC char were healthy, and no disease incidence occurred.

Indexed as

biocharbiological controlFusariumlegumeslupinroot rot

Identifiers

PMID32244470
PMCPMC7232306
OpenAlexW3015156795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.