Table 5.

Effect of native Rhizobium strains with different nutrient management practices on yield and relative agronomic efficiency of French bean.

Treatments	Yield (t ha−1)	Response (%)	RAE (%)
Absolute Control	10.4 ± 0.03a	–	–
S1	11.5 ± 0.03b	11*	28
S2	11.9 ± 0.05c	16*	38
FP	12.4 ± 0.05c	(-)29$	50
FP + S1	14.5 ± 0.07d	26**	103
FP + S2	14.8 ± 0.08d	30**	110
FP + S1 + L	16.5 ± 0.08e	29***	153
FP + S2 + L	17.1 ± 0.09e	34****	168
STD	14.4 ± 0.09de	–	100
STD + S1	15.9 ± 0.11e	22$$	138
STD + S2	16.1 ± 0.12f	24$$$	143
STD + S1 + L	18.0 ± 0.13g	33$$$	190
STD + S2 + L	18.5 ± 0.15h	39$$$	203
STD + S1 + L + B	18.8 ± 0.15h	14#	210
STD + S2 + L + B	19.5 ± 0.16i	19#	228

Mean values (mean ± SE, n = 4) followed by different letters are statistically different (ANOVA; Duncan’s multiple- test range, p ≤ 0.05).

*Response compared to control.

**Response compared over FP.

***Response of lime over FP + S1.

****Response of lime over PF + S2 practice.

^$Yield loss in FP compared to STD.

^$$Response over STD.

^$$$Response of lime over respective lime packages.

^#Response of B application over respective non- B practice.