Abstract
Most crops host arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). Canola and other brassicas are some of the few exceptions. This study examined AM fungal colonisation, uptake of phosphorus (P) and zinc (Zn), growth, and yield of wheat following brassicas and crops that host AMF in 5 crop-sequence experiments in southern New South Wales and Victoria. All experiments were on alkaline Vertosols, similar to soils in the northern wheatbelt on which low AM fungal colonisation of wheat following canola, or long-fallow, has been reported to induce poor crop growth. Soils with a broad range of extractable P concentrations were chosen. AM fungal colonisation of wheat was generally lower following brassicas than hosts of AMF, although this varied with year and location. The effect on wheat AM fungal colonisation levels did not vary between brassicas with differing levels and types of root glucosinolates. Low AM fungal colonisation did not affect early wheat growth, pre-anthesis P and Zn uptake, or yield. A positive relationship between AM fungal colonisation and grain Zn and P concentrations occurred in one experiment. High levels of colonisation by AMF did not protect crop roots from damage by root pathogens and high levels of pathogen damage made interpretation of results difficult in some instances. As these findings are consistent with results from an experiment on an acidic Kandosol in southern New South Wales, it appears farmers do not need to consider the degree to which wheat will be colonised by AMF when planning crop sequences in south-eastern Australia.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
AM fungal colonisation of wheat was generally lower after brassicas than after AMF host crops.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume1 - Treatment
- brassicase1
- Interactor
- AMFe1symbiont
- Outcome
- AM fungal colonisatione1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Qualifier
- varied with year and locatione1
- Comparator
- hosts of AMFe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“AM fungal colonisation of wheat was generally lower following brassicas than hosts of AMF, although this varied with year and location”
Claim · model-written summary
Brassicas with differing root glucosinolate levels and types did not change wheat AM fungal colonisation levels.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- brassicas with differing levels and types of root glucosinolatese1
- Interactor
- AMFe2symbiont
- Outcome
- wheat AM fungal colonisation levelse1
- Direction
- did not varye1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The effect on wheat AM fungal colonisation levels did not vary between brassicas with differing levels and types of root glucosinolates”
e2“AM fungal colonisation of wheat was generally lower following brassicas than hosts of AMF, although this varied with year and location”
Claim · model-written summary
Low AM fungal colonisation did not affect early wheat growth, pre-anthesis P and Zn uptake, or yield.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Low AM fungal colonisatione1
- Outcome
- early wheat growth, pre-anthesis P and Zn uptake, or yielde1
- Direction
- did not affecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Low AM fungal colonisation did not affect early wheat growth, pre-anthesis P and Zn uptake, or yield”
Claim · model-written summary
AM fungal colonisation was positively related to grain Zn and P concentrations of wheat in one experiment.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- AM fungal colonisatione1
- Outcome
- grain Zn and P concentrationse1
- Direction
- positive relationshipe1
- Qualifier
- occurred in one experimente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“A positive relationship between AM fungal colonisation and grain Zn and P concentrations occurred in one experiment”
e2“AM fungal colonisation of wheat was generally lower following brassicas than hosts of AMF, although this varied with year and location”
Claim · model-written summary
High levels of AM fungal colonisation did not protect wheat roots from damage by root pathogens.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- High levels of colonisation by AMFe1
- Interactor
- root pathogense1pathogen
- Outcome
- protect crop roots from damage by root pathogense1
- Direction
- did not protecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“High levels of colonisation by AMF did not protect crop roots from damage by root pathogens”
e2“AM fungal colonisation of wheat was generally lower following brassicas than hosts of AMF, although this varied with year and location”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers need not consider the degree of AM fungal colonisation of wheat when planning crop sequences in south-eastern Australia.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Outcome
- the degree to which wheat will be colonised by AMFe1
- Qualifier
- in south-eastern Australiae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“farmers do not need to consider the degree to which wheat will be colonised by AMF when planning crop sequences in south-eastern Australia”
The same questions in other papers
mycorrhiza · pest · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
mycorrhiza · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 95 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
99 papers more in this group
See all 103 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.