Abstract
Abstract Plants grown in acidic soils often have reduced productivity because of limited mineral nutrients. For plants to obtain adequate nutrients under these conditions, some source of fertilizer is commonly added or a method to make nutrients more available to plants, such as mycorrhiza, is needed. Maize (Zea mays L.) was grown in acidic soil (pHW 4.7, soilwater, 1:1) with added phosphate rock (PR) and the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus (AMF) Glomus clarum to determine the effectiveness of AMF and PR for supplying nutrients, especially P. Plants were grown in a growth chamber and harvested when plants had grown in treated soil 15, 22, 29, and 36 d. Plant dry matter (DM) was greatly enhanced by PR, and even more at each harvest when roots were colonized with AMF (AMF+PR). Shoot DM increased more than root DM with PR (PR and AMF+PR) treatments. Total root length (RL) was greater for plants grown with PR and AMF+PR compared to the Control (no added P or AMF) and AMF plants. Colonization of roots by AMF was higher for AMF+PR than for AMF plants. Acquisition of P followed the sequence of AMF+PR > PR >> AMF > Control. Other nutrients commonly limiting in acidic soil [e.g., calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and potassium (K)] were greatly enhanced in AMF compared to nonmycorrhizal (nonAMF) plants. The AMF plants had 2-3-fold greater inflow rates [inflow = μg nutrient m−1 RL day−1] of Ca, Mg, copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), and boron (B) than nonAMF plants. The application of PR and/or AMF colonization decreased the concentrations of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and aluminum (Al) in the shoots. The lower specific accumulation rate [SAcR = μg nutrient g−1 shoot DM day−1] of Fe, Mn, and Al in the shoots indicated a possible precipitation or/and formation of metal-organic complexes in the roots. Application of PR to this acidic soil did not inhibit maize response to AMF, and both PR and AMF were important for optimal growth of maize in this acidic soil. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Support of the Fulbright Exchange Program (CIES/USIA, No. 21133) to G.A. Alloush is gratefully appreciated. We also thank Dr. D. Bligh and Ms. B. White for ICP mineral analysis, and to Ms. M. Smith for technical assistance. Notes * Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphate rock greatly enhanced maize dry matter.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“Plant dry matter (DM) was greatly enhanced by PR”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding AMF colonization to phosphate rock further enhanced maize dry matter at each harvest.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“even more at each harvest when roots were colonized with AMF (AMF+PR)”
Claim · model-written summary
Shoot dry matter increased more than root dry matter under phosphate rock treatments.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“Shoot DM increased more than root DM with PR (PR and AMF+PR) treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphate rock increased total root length relative to controls.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“Total root length (RL) was greater for plants grown with PR and AMF+PR compared to the Control (no added P or AMF) and AMF plants”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF plus phosphate rock increased total root length relative to controls.
- Treatment
- AMF+PRe1
- Interactor
- AMFe1symbiont
- Outcome
- Total root length (RL)e1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Comparator
- Controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“Total root length (RL) was greater for plants grown with PR and AMF+PR compared to the Control (no added P or AMF) and AMF plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphate rock increased AMF root colonization.
- Treatment
- AMF+PRe1
- Interactor
- AMFe1symbiont
- Outcome
- Colonization of roots by AMFe1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- AMF plantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“Colonization of roots by AMF was higher for AMF+PR than for AMF plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphorus acquisition ranked AMF plus phosphate rock above phosphate rock alone, AMF alone, and control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“Acquisition of P followed the sequence of AMF+PR > PR >> AMF > Control”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF enhanced calcium, magnesium, and potassium acquisition compared with nonmycorrhizal plants.
- Treatment
- AMFe1
- Interactor
- AMFe1symbiont
- Outcome
- calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and potassium (K)e1
- Direction
- enhancede1
- Comparator
- nonmycorrhizal (nonAMF) plantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and potassium (K)] were greatly enhanced in AMF compared to nonmycorrhizal (nonAMF) plants”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF plants had 2-3-fold greater inflow of calcium, magnesium, and copper than nonAMF plants.
- Treatment
- AMFe1
- Interactor
- AMFe1symbiont
- Outcome
- inflow ratese1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Value
- 2-3-folde1
- Comparator
- nonAMF plantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“AMF plants had 2-3-fold greater inflow rates [inflow = μg nutrient m−1 RL day−1] of Ca, Mg, copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), and boron (B) than nonAMF plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphate rock or AMF colonization lowered shoot iron, manganese, and aluminum concentrations.
- Treatment
- PR and/or AMF colonizatione1
- Interactor
- AMFe1symbiont
- Outcome
- concentrations of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and aluminum (Al) in the shootse1
- Direction
- decreasede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“The application of PR and/or AMF colonization decreased the concentrations of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and aluminum (Al) in the shoots”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower shoot metal accumulation suggested precipitation or metal-organic complexes in roots.
- Outcome
- lower specific accumulation ratee1
- Qualifier
- possible precipitation or/and formation of metal-organic complexes in the rootse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“The lower specific accumulation rate [SAcR = μg nutrient g−1 shoot DM day−1] of Fe, Mn, and Al in the shoots indicated a possible precipitation or/and formation of metal-organic complexes in the roots”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphate rock did not inhibit maize response to AMF.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of PR to this acidic soil did not inhibit maize response to AMF”
The same questions in other papers
infection · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →phosphorus · disease · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →mycorrhiza · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
118 papers more in this group
See all 122 papers →mycorrhiza · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
168 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
184 papers more in this group
See all 188 papers →phosphorus · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
189 papers in the same direction as this paper · 50 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
240 papers more in this group
See all 244 papers →phosphorus · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
251 papers in the same direction as this paper · 51 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
302 papers more in this group
See all 306 papers →mycorrhiza · disease · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
48 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 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.