Abstract
A factorial experiment was conducted to determine the interaction between vesicular-arbuscular fungi (VAF) inoculation (Glomus constrictus Trappe, G. deserticola Trappe, Blosse, and Menge, G. mosseae Nicol. and Gerd.) and soil lime content (0, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, and 30% active lime). A control without fungus inoculum was set up for each medium. The mycorrhizal plants showed overall greater root and shoot growth than the control, independently of the soil lime content, and G. mosseae and G. constrictus caused greater vegetative development than G. deserticola. However, plant growth was reduced by increasing soil lime content. The absence of significant interactions between the two factors of variability (fungi x lime concentration) on vegetative growth suggests that mycorrhization, while increasing vine growth, does not reduce grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate. Leaf chlorosis was found to be significantly higher in leaves of the inoculated cuttings, its incidence being greater at the higher lime rates. Leaf chlorophyll content (µg/mg) was reduced by VAM, while chlorophyll content per leaf area unit was also inversely correlated to lime concentration in the substrate. Leaf mineral content was not influenced by soil lime, except for magnesium which decreased with increased lime concentration. Inoculation of mycorrhizal fungi influenced the mineral content of P, Mn, and B and to a lesser extent Zn and Cu.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal plants had greater root and shoot growth than uninoculated controls across lime contents.
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mycorrhizal plants showed overall greater root and shoot growth than the control, independently of the soil lime content”
e1“G. mosseae and G. constrictus caused greater vegetative development”
e2“grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate”
Claim · model-written summary
G. mosseae caused greater vegetative development than G. deserticola.
- Treatment
- G. mosseaee0
- Interactor
- G. mosseae
Funneliformis mosseaee0symbiont - Outcome
- vegetative developmente0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- G. deserticolae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“G. mosseae and G. constrictus caused greater vegetative development than G. deserticola”
e1“grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate”
Claim · model-written summary
G. constrictus caused greater vegetative development than G. deserticola.
- Treatment
- G. constrictuse0
- Interactor
- G. constrictuse0symbiont
- Outcome
- vegetative developmente0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- G. deserticolae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“G. mosseae and G. constrictus caused greater vegetative development than G. deserticola”
e1“grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant growth declined as soil lime increased.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plant growth was reduced by increasing soil lime content”
e1“grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungus-by-lime interaction on vegetative growth was nonsignificant.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The absence of significant interactions between the two factors of variability (fungi x lime concentration) on vegetative growth”
e1“grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhization did not reduce grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mycorrhization, while increasing vine growth, does not reduce grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal inoculation increased leaf chlorosis.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf chlorosis was found to be significantly higher in leaves of the inoculated cuttings”
e1“grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf chlorosis incidence increased at higher lime rates.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“its incidence being greater at the higher lime rates”
e1“Leaf chlorosis was found to be significantly higher in leaves of the inoculated cuttings”
e2“grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate”
Claim · model-written summary
VAM reduced leaf chlorophyll content per mass.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf chlorophyll content (µg/mg) was reduced by VAM”
e1“grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf-area chlorophyll content was inversely correlated with lime concentration.
- Treatment
- lime concentration in the substratee0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll content per leaf area unite0
- Direction
- inversely correlatede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“chlorophyll content per leaf area unit was also inversely correlated to lime concentration in the substrate”
e1“grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil lime did not influence leaf mineral content except magnesium.
- Treatment
- soil limee0
- Outcome
- Leaf mineral contente0
- Direction
- not influencede0
- Qualifier
- except for magnesiume0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf mineral content was not influenced by soil lime, except for magnesium which decreased with increased lime concentration”
e1“grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf magnesium decreased with higher lime concentration.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“magnesium which decreased with increased lime concentration”
e1“Leaf mineral content”
e2“grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal inoculation influenced leaf P, Mn and B content.
- Treatment
- Inoculation of mycorrhizal fungie0
- Interactor
- mycorrhizal fungie0symbiont
- Outcome
- mineral content of P, Mn, and Be0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Inoculation of mycorrhizal fungi influenced the mineral content of P, Mn, and B”
e1“grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal inoculation influenced leaf Zn and Cu content to a lesser extent.
- Treatment
- Inoculation of mycorrhizal fungie0
- Interactor
- mycorrhizal fungie0symbiont
- Outcome
- Zn and Cue0
- Qualifier
- to a lesser extente0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Inoculation of mycorrhizal fungi influenced the mineral content of P, Mn, and B and to a lesser extent Zn and Cu”
e1“grapevine susceptibility to calcium carbonate”
The same questions in other papers
Funneliformis mosseae · growth · VitisResults agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →mycorrhiza · physiology: pigments · VitisResults differ
7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →inoculation · physiology: pigments · VitisResults differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →mycorrhiza · disease · VitisPositive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
lime · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →mycorrhiza · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 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.