ArticlePhysiologia plantarum
Chickpea displays a temporal growth response to Mesorhizobium strains under well-watered and drought conditions.
Article in Physiologia plantarum. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Chickpea displays a temporal growth response to Mesorhizobium strains under well-watered and drought conditions.Physiologia plantarumArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The relative performance of rhizobial strains could depend on their resource allocation, environmental conditions, and host genotype. Here, we used a high-throughput shoot phenotyping to investigate the effects of Mesorhizobium strain on the growth dynamics, nodulation and bacteroid traits with four chickpea (Cicer arietinum) varieties grown under different water regimes in an experiment including four nitrogen sources (two Mesorhizobium strains, and two uninoculated controls: nitrogen fertilised and unfertilised) under well-watered and drought conditions. We asked three questions. Does the impact of rhizobial strains on chickpea growth change with well-watered versus drought conditions? Do Mesorhizobium strains differ in their ability to influence biomass and nodule traits of chickpea varieties under well-watered and drought conditions? Are bacteroid size and amount of polyhydroxybutyrate modified by Mesorhizobium strain, chickpea variety, water availability and their interactions? Under well-watered conditions, chickpea inoculated with CC1192 showed higher shoot growth rates than M075 and accumulated high plant biomass at harvest. Under drought conditions, however, the shoot growth rate was comparable between CC1192 and M075, with no significant difference in plant biomass and symbiotic effectiveness at harvest. Across sources of variation, plant biomass varied 3.0-fold, nodules per plant 3.9-fold, nodule dry weight 3.0-fold, symbiotic effectiveness 1.5-fold, bacteroid size 1.4-fold and bacteroid polyhydroxybutyrate 1.4-fold. Plant biomass was negatively correlated with both bacteroid size and allocation to polyhydroxybutyrate under well-watered conditions, suggesting a trade-off between plant and rhizobial fitness. This study demonstrates the need to reassess rhizobial strain effectiveness across diverse environments, recognising the dynamic nature of their interaction with host plants.
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.