Back

Do commercial nitrogen-fixing and biostimulant inputs add agronomic value over standard fertilization? An equivalence-based re-analysis of three randomized field trials in the Brazilian Cerrado

Horita, V.;Yuan, L.

2026-06-17 Plant Biology
10.64898/2026.06.16.732230 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Commercial inoculants based on associative diazotrophs and methylotrophic bacteria, and bios-timulant programs, are marketed for broad use in cereal and fiber production, yet most field deployment occurs over already adequate mineral fertilization, where their marginal value is poorly quantified. We reanalyzed three randomized complete-block trials conducted at commercial scale in the Brazilian Cerrado (Sao Desiderio, Bahia) under full conventional fertilization: corn (seven treatments, four blocks; 2023/24), cotton (five treatments, four blocks; 2024/25), and soybean (four treatments, six blocks; 2024/25). Treatments evaluated Azospirillum brasilense, Methylobacterium symbioticum, Bradyrhizobium spp., a Bacillus phosphorus solubilizer, and biostimulants, applied via seed and foliar routes. Beyond conventional analysis of variance, we fit mixed models with block as a random effect, quantified effect sizes and coefficients of variation, computed the minimum detectable difference at 80% power, and applied two one-sided equivalence tests (TOST) against the untreated control at margins of plus or minus 10% and 15% of control yield. No treatment produced a statistically significant yield gain in any crop (all p greater than 0.8; fixed and mixed models concordant). In cotton, the best-powered trial (coefficient of variation 6%), all treatments were statistically equivalent to the untreated control within a 10% margin, an affirmative negative result. In corn and soybean the trials were underpowered (minimum detectable difference 21 to 26% of control), so non-significance is not equivalence; corn showed non-significant numerical gains up to 8.9% with phosphorus-solubilizer and methylotroph combinations that could not be excluded. Foliar nutrient concentrations (single composite per treatment, descriptive) showed no enrichment in inoculated treatments. Under standard fertilization, these commercial inputs delivered no detectable agronomic value where the data were adequately powered to test it. The results clarify the low empirical bar that current associative-fixation products meet in the field and, by extension, the agronomic threshold that engineered, plant-controlled nitrogen fixation must exceed to be useful.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 5%
27.3%
2
Frontiers in Plant Science
256 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
9.2%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 14%
5.6%
4
Plant and Soil
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
5
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMC Plant Biology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.8%
7
Plant Physiology
238 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
8
Pest Management Science
36 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.5%
9
Evolutionary Applications
108 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.2%
10
PNAS Nexus
159 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
11
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
12
Agronomy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
13
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 47%
1.8%
14
Phytopathology®
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.4%
16
Theoretical and Applied Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
17
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
18
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.2%
19
New Phytologist
346 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
20
Journal of Experimental Botany
219 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
21
Science
477 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.0%
22
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
23
Phytobiomes Journal
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
24
The Plant Journal
215 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
25
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
252 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
26
Nature Plants
94 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
27
The Plant Genome
57 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.6%
28
Journal of Environmental Management
13 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%