Abstract
S ummary Onion and Coprosma plants were grown in a range of soils mostly containing very little available phosphate. Very large increases of shoot dry weight (up to eighteen‐fold with Coprosma and nineteen‐fold with onion) were obtained by adding phosphate. Similar increases (up to fifteen‐fold with Coprosma and twelve‐fold with onion) were obtained by mycorrhizal inoculation. The response to phosphate equalled or slightly exceeded the response to mycorrhiza, except in two soils rich in phosphate in which there was no response to either, and in one soil in which the mycorrhizal onion and Coprosma plants were twice as heavy as those given phosphate. The greatly increased growth from either treatment was associated with a large increase in the uptake of phosphorus. The probability of such growth responses, but not their size, was usually predictable in soils containing very little phosphorus soluble in CaCl 2 . In all soils with inoculum mycorrhizal infection was extensive. The sources of phosphorus available to mycorrhizal roots but not to non‐mycorrhizal roots differed in the various soils. In some inhibitory factors might make vesicular‐arbuscular mycorrhiza less effective in promoting the growth of the host plants.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphate addition increased Coprosma shoot dry weight up to eighteen-fold.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Very large increases of shoot dry weight (up to eighteen‐fold with Coprosma and nineteen‐fold with onion) were obtained by adding phosphate.”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphate addition increased onion shoot dry weight up to nineteen-fold.
- Taxon
- onion
Allium cepae0 - Treatment
- adding phosphatee0
- Outcome
- shoot dry weighte0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- nineteen‐folde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Very large increases of shoot dry weight (up to eighteen‐fold with Coprosma and nineteen‐fold with onion) were obtained by adding phosphate.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal inoculation increased Coprosma shoot dry weight up to fifteen-fold.
- Treatment
- mycorrhizal inoculatione0
- Interactor
- mycorrhizale0symbiont
- Outcome
- shoot dry weighte1
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- up to fifteen‐folde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similar increases (up to fifteen‐fold with Coprosma and twelve‐fold with onion) were obtained by mycorrhizal inoculation.”
e1“Very large increases of shoot dry weight (up to eighteen‐fold with Coprosma and nineteen‐fold with onion) were obtained by adding phosphate.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal inoculation increased onion shoot dry weight up to twelve-fold.
- Taxon
- onionAllium cepae0
- Treatment
- mycorrhizal inoculatione0
- Interactor
- mycorrhizale0symbiont
- Outcome
- shoot dry weighte1
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- twelve‐folde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similar increases (up to fifteen‐fold with Coprosma and twelve‐fold with onion) were obtained by mycorrhizal inoculation.”
e1“Very large increases of shoot dry weight (up to eighteen‐fold with Coprosma and nineteen‐fold with onion) were obtained by adding phosphate.”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphate responses generally equalled or slightly exceeded mycorrhiza responses, except in specified soils.
- Taxon
- onion and CoprosmaAllium cepa
Coprosmae0 - Outcome
- response to phosphatee0
- Direction
- equalled or slightly exceedede0
- Comparator
- response to mycorrhizae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The response to phosphate equalled or slightly exceeded the response to mycorrhiza, except in two soils rich in phosphate in which there was no response to either, and in one soil in which the mycorrhizal onion and Coprosma plants were twice as heavy as those given phosphate.”
Claim · model-written summary
In two phosphate-rich soils, plants did not respond to phosphate or mycorrhiza.
- Taxon
- onion and CoprosmaAllium cepaCoprosmae1
- Outcome
- response to eithere0
- Direction
- no responsee0
- Setting
- two soils rich in phosphatee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in two soils rich in phosphate in which there was no response to either”
e1“mycorrhizal onion and Coprosma plants”
Claim · model-written summary
In one soil, mycorrhizal onion plants were twice as heavy as phosphate-treated plants.
- Taxon
- onionAllium cepae0
- Treatment
- mycorrhizale0
- Interactor
- mycorrhizale0symbiont
- Outcome
- plantse0
- Direction
- twice as heavye0
- Value
- twicee0
- Comparator
- those given phosphatee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in one soil in which the mycorrhizal onion and Coprosma plants were twice as heavy as those given phosphate.”
Claim · model-written summary
In one soil, mycorrhizal Coprosma plants were twice as heavy as phosphate-treated plants.
- Treatment
- mycorrhizale0
- Interactor
- mycorrhizale0symbiont
- Outcome
- plantse0
- Direction
- twice as heavye0
- Value
- twicee0
- Comparator
- those given phosphatee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in one soil in which the mycorrhizal onion and Coprosma plants were twice as heavy as those given phosphate.”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased growth under phosphate or mycorrhiza treatment was associated with increased phosphorus uptake.
- Taxon
- Onion and CoprosmaAllium cepaCoprosmae1
- Treatment
- either treatmente0
- Outcome
- uptake of phosphoruse0
- Direction
- increasee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The greatly increased growth from either treatment was associated with a large increase in the uptake of phosphorus.”
e1“Onion and Coprosma plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Low CaCl2-soluble soil phosphorus usually predicted the probability, but not size, of plant growth response.
- Taxon
- Onion and CoprosmaAllium cepaCoprosmae1
- Outcome
- probability of such growth responsese0
- Qualifier
- but not their sizee0
- Setting
- soils containing very little phosphorus soluble in CaCl 2e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The probability of such growth responses, but not their size, was usually predictable in soils containing very little phosphorus soluble in CaCl 2 .”
e1“Onion and Coprosma plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal infection was extensive in all soils with inoculum.
- Taxon
- Onion and CoprosmaAllium cepaCoprosmae1
- Interactor
- mycorrhizale0symbiont
- Outcome
- mycorrhizal infectione0
- Direction
- extensivee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In all soils with inoculum mycorrhizal infection was extensive.”
e1“Onion and Coprosma plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphorus sources accessible to mycorrhizal roots but not nonmycorrhizal roots differed among soils.
- Taxon
- Onion and CoprosmaAllium cepaCoprosmae1
- Interactor
- mycorrhizale0symbiont
- Outcome
- sources of phosphorus available to mycorrhizal rootse0
- Direction
- differede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The sources of phosphorus available to mycorrhizal roots but not to non‐mycorrhizal roots differed in the various soils.”
e1“Onion and Coprosma plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Inhibitory factors in some soils might limit mycorrhiza promotion of host growth.
- Taxon
- Onion and CoprosmaAllium cepaCoprosmae1
- Interactor
- vesicular‐arbuscular mycorrhizae0symbiont
- Outcome
- growth of the host plantse0
- Qualifier
- inhibitory factorse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In some inhibitory factors might make vesicular‐arbuscular mycorrhiza less effective in promoting the growth of the host plants.”
e1“Onion and Coprosma plants”
The same questions in other papers
mycorrhiza · growth · Allium cepa (onion)Results differ
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 papers →inoculation · growth · Allium cepa (onion)Results differ
88 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
95 papers more in this group
See all 99 papers →phosphorus · growth · Allium cepa (onion)Results agree
31 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 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.