ArticleFrontiers in plant science2024
Effect of a
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bacterial extracellular vesicles as emerging biostimulants in plant microbe signaling and stress tolerance.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Review
- The genomic resource of Lysinibacillus fusiformis KBD-5, a biocontrol agent with antifungal activity against Botrytis cinerea.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Enzymatic Activity and Organic Acid Profile of Phosphate-Solubilizing Bacterial Inoculants and Their Agronomic Effectiveness in Soybean.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Review
- Plant growth-promoting bacteria from Uzungöl forest stimulate rice growth via seed biopriming and root inoculation: isolation and functional characterization of potent PGPR strains from rhizosphere soils of different trees.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Synergistic effects ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Effect of microbial fertilizers on soil microbial community structure in rotating and continuous croppingFrontiers in plant science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Phosphate-solubilizing bacteria that function through acidification (organic acid synthesis) or mineralization (production of enzymes such as phytase and phosphatases) have been explored as a biotechnological alternative to enhance plant access to phosphorus (P) retained in organic and inorganic forms in agricultural soils. This study tested the hypothesis that applying a biofertilizer composed of a recognized phosphate-solubilizing bacterium ( Methods: Initial in vitro tests assessed the functional traits of these bacteria, and a mix of strains BVPS01 and BVPS02 was produced and tested under field conditions to evaluate its agronomic efficiency. Results: The results confirmed the hypothesis that the tested biofertilizer enhances the agronomic performance of Discussion: Thus, the tested biofertilizer demonstrated potential to improve root growth and increase both the yield and quality of soybean crops, making it a sustainable and low-cost strategy.
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.