Abstract
Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) are important in agriculture and have received attention as they are considered a part of an active and diverse soil biological community essential for increasing the sustainability of agricultural systems. However, most of agricultural practices have a negative impact on AMF association and agricultural soils are AMF impoverished. Interventions to replenish AMF include re-introduction through inoculation or manipulation of existing AMF to increase density. A major problem with inoculation is that there is possible competition with native (indigenous) AMF species. Indigenous AMF will be more adapted to the soil environment than introduced strains but with conflicting results on the effects of AMF inoculation on crop yield, more field studies for different ecological areas are required. The objective of the study was to compare the effect of inoculating crops with indigenous AMF applied applied singly or combined with other Soil Fertility Amendment Practices (SFAP) on root colonisation and subsequent performance of maize (Zea mays L.) and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Analysis was also done on the best soil amendment practice that encourages crop colonisation by AMF. This was tested under field experiment and compared with control treatment (no soil amendment practice) and three other soil fertility amendment practices used singly or in combination with AMF; (1) MAVUNO (macro- and micronutrients and secondary nutrients) fertilizer, and (2) Calcium Ammonium Nitrate (CAN) and Triple Super Phosphate (TSP) (3) cattle manure. Maize and bean performances were determined and compared between the treatments for a period of two consecutive seasons with the experiment replicated in two benchmark sites of Embu district (highlands of central Kenya) and Taita-Taveta district (coastal highlands). Soils at Embu have high soil pH than at Taita which results in low phosphorus levels and possible micronutrients deficiencies. Even though no significant differences were observed from root colonisation by AMF with application of SFAP, significant differences were observed at the crop yield. Bean crop was more responsive to AMF inoculation than maize in terms of yield. Combination of AMF inoculant with other organic and inorganic fertilizers resulted in higher crop yield compared to AMF applied singly. Thus, utilisation of indigenous AMF species has potential to constitute an environmentally friendly method of soil fertility amendment over time to improve maize and bean production potential of small-scale holders but consideration should be done on the local soil nutrients conditions, other soil fertility amendment practices in use and the targeted crop.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 5
Claim · model-written summary
Application of SFAP with AMF inoculation produced no significant difference in root colonisation by AMF compared with the control treatment.
- Taxon
- maize (Zea mays L.) and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
Phaseolus vulgaris
Zea mayse0 - Treatment
- inoculating crops with indigenous AMFe0
- Interactor
- indigenous AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- root colonisation by AMFe1
- Direction
- no significant differencese1
- Comparator
- control treatmente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The objective of the study was to compare the effect of inoculating crops with indigenous AMF applied applied singly or combined with other Soil Fertility Amendment Practices (SFAP) on root colonisation and subsequent performance of maize (Zea mays L.) and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)”
e1“Even though no significant differences were observed from root colonisation by AMF with application of SFAP, significant differences were observed at the crop yield”
e2“compared with control treatment (no soil amendment practice)”
Claim · model-written summary
Common bean was more responsive to AMF inoculation than maize in terms of yield.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Treatment
- AMF inoculatione1
- Interactor
- AMFe1symbiont
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- more responsivee1
- Comparator
- maizee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The objective of the study was to compare the effect of inoculating crops with indigenous AMF applied applied singly or combined with other Soil Fertility Amendment Practices (SFAP) on root colonisation and subsequent performance of maize (Zea mays L.) and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)”
e1“Bean crop was more responsive to AMF inoculation than maize in terms of yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Combining AMF inoculant with organic and inorganic fertilizers gave higher crop yield than AMF applied singly.
- Taxon
- maize (Zea mays L.) and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)Phaseolus vulgarisZea mayse0
- Treatment
- Combination of AMF inoculant with other organic and inorganic fertilizerse1
- Interactor
- AMFe1symbiont
- Outcome
- crop yielde1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- AMF applied singlye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The objective of the study was to compare the effect of inoculating crops with indigenous AMF applied applied singly or combined with other Soil Fertility Amendment Practices (SFAP) on root colonisation and subsequent performance of maize (Zea mays L.) and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)”
e1“Combination of AMF inoculant with other organic and inorganic fertilizers resulted in higher crop yield compared to AMF applied singly”
Claim · model-written summary
Significant differences were observed in crop yield among the AMF and soil amendment treatments.
- Taxon
- maize (Zea mays L.) and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)Phaseolus vulgarisZea mayse0
- Outcome
- crop yielde1
- Qualifier
- significant differences were observede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The objective of the study was to compare the effect of inoculating crops with indigenous AMF applied applied singly or combined with other Soil Fertility Amendment Practices (SFAP) on root colonisation and subsequent performance of maize (Zea mays L.) and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)”
e1“Even though no significant differences were observed from root colonisation by AMF with application of SFAP, significant differences were observed at the crop yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Indigenous AMF species have potential as an environmentally friendly soil fertility method to improve maize and bean production potential, subject to local soil conditions.
Verbatim
e0“utilisation of indigenous AMF species has potential to constitute an environmentally friendly method of soil fertility amendment over time to improve maize and bean production potential of small-scale holders”
The same questions in other papers
mycorrhiza · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
103 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
109 papers more in this group
See all 113 papers →mycorrhiza · yield · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →inoculation · yield · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
152 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
191 papers more in this group
See all 195 papers →fertilization · yield · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
330 papers in the same direction as this paper · 42 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
372 papers more in this group
See all 376 papers →inoculation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
478 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
534 papers more in this group
See all 538 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.