ArticleMicroorganisms2022
Nodulation and Growth Promotion of Chickpea by
Article in Microorganisms, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bacterial Resilience and Vulnerability to Neonicotinoid Seed Treatments in Soil: Short-Term Community Responses.Environmental microbiology reports · 2026Article
- Selection of competitive and effective rhizobial strain for enhanced chickpea production under Indo-Gangetic plains of India.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2025Article
- Genome-wide association studies identified novel SNPs associated with efficient biological nitrogen fixation in chickpea (Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Harnessing chickpea bacterial endophytes for improved plant health and fitness.AIMS microbiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The cultivation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in South Africa is dependent on the application of suitable Mesorhizobium inoculants. Therefore, we evaluated the symbiotic effectiveness of several Mesorhizobium strains with different chickpea genotypes under controlled conditions. The tested parameters included shoot dry weight (SDW), nodule fresh weight (NFW), plant height, relative symbiotic effectiveness (RSE) on the plant as well as indole acetic acid (IAA) production and phosphate solubilization on the rhizobia. Twenty-one Mesorhizobium strains and six desi chickpea genotypes were laid out in a completely randomized design (CRD) with three replicates in a glasshouse pot experiment. The factors, chickpea genotype and Mesorhizobium strain, had significant effects on the measured parameters (p < 0.001) but lacked significant interactions based on the analysis of variance (ANOVA). The light variety desi genotype outperformed the other chickpea genotypes on all tested parameters. In general, inoculation with strains LMG15046, CC1192, XAP4, XAP10, and LMG14989 performed best for all the tested parameters. All the strains were able to produce IAA and solubilize phosphate except the South African field isolates, which could not solubilize phosphate. Taken together, inoculation with compatible Mesorhizobium promoted chickpea growth. This is the first study to report on chickpea-compatible Mesorhizobium strains isolated from uninoculated South African soils with no history of chickpea production; although, their plant growth promotion ability was poorer compared to some of the globally sourced strains. Since this study was conducted under controlled conditions, we recommend field studies to assess the performance of the five highlighted strains under environmental conditions in South Africa.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.