Abstract
summary In order to examine whether hyphae of VA mycorrhizal fungi may aid the transfer of symbiotically fixed nitrogen from a legume to a non‐legume, the roots of berseem plants inoculated with the VAM fungus Glomus intraradices and Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar. trifolii (strain RCR 5) were separated by a 2 cm root‐free zone from the roots of maize plants. A 40 um pore size nylon net allowed VAM hyphae to pass through the root‐free zone but prevented root penetration. Replacement of this net by a 0.45 μm pore size membrane prevented penetration of VAM hyphae to the root‐free compartment. When the berseem plants were 63 d old, the plant chambers were sealed in plastic bags to allow the roots of the plants to be exposed to a l0 N 2 ‐enriched atmosphere for 5 d. Berseem plants that were exposed to a 15 N 2 ‐enriched atmosphere fixed more 15 N than did berseem plants maintained under air at natural 15 N abundance. The total 15 N excess content of berseem was similar whether or not the mycorrhiza had access to the maize roots. Plant mass (dry weight) of maize was not affected by the mycorrhizal fungus, but total nitrogen content tended to be higher in VAM‐colonized maize than in non‐colonized maize. Furthermore, both atom % 15 N excess and 15 N excess content of mycorrhizal maize were significantly increased as compared with non‐mycorrhizal maize or with maize controls without berseem. The amounts of 15 N transferred were small, accounting for less than 4% of the 15 N in the N 2 ‐fixing plant. In spite of the 2 cm root‐free separating zone, the presence of the mycorrhizal fungus in the non‐legume increased the transfer of symbiotically fixed nitrogen from berseem to maize plants that were physiologically younger. The implications of these results for nitrogen transfer from a legume to an accompanying non‐legume via VAM hyphae are discussed.
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
Berseem plants exposed to a 15N2-enriched atmosphere fixed more 15N than berseem plants kept under air at natural 15N abundance.
Verbatim
e1“Berseem plants that were exposed to a 15 N 2 ‐enriched atmosphere fixed more 15 N than did berseem plants maintained under air at natural 15 N abundance”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant dry mass of maize was not affected by the mycorrhizal fungus.
- Treatment
- mycorrhizal funguse3
- Interactor
- mycorrhizal funguse3symbiont
- Outcome
- Plant mass (dry weight)e3
- Direction
- not affectede3
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Plant mass (dry weight) of maize was not affected by the mycorrhizal fungus”
Claim · model-written summary
Total nitrogen content of VAM-colonized maize tended to be higher than that of non-colonized maize.
- Treatment
- VAM‐colonizede4
- Outcome
- total nitrogen contente4
- Direction
- tended to be highere4
- Comparator
- non‐colonized maizee4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“total nitrogen content tended to be higher in VAM‐colonized maize than in non‐colonized maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Atom % 15N excess and 15N excess content of mycorrhizal maize were significantly increased compared with non-mycorrhizal maize and with maize controls without berseem.
- Treatment
- mycorrhizale5
- Outcome
- atom % 15 N excess and 15 N excess contente5
- Direction
- significantly increasede5
- Comparator
- non‐mycorrhizal maizee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“both atom % 15 N excess and 15 N excess content of mycorrhizal maize were significantly increased as compared with non‐mycorrhizal maize or with maize controls without berseem”
Claim · model-written summary
The amount of 15N transferred to maize was small, less than 4% of the 15N in the N2-fixing berseem plant.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“The amounts of 15 N transferred were small, accounting for less than 4% of the 15 N in the N 2 ‐fixing plant”
e3“Plant mass (dry weight) of maize was not affected by the mycorrhizal fungus”
Claim · model-written summary
In spite of a 2 cm root-free zone, the mycorrhizal fungus in the non-legume increased the transfer of symbiotically fixed nitrogen from berseem to physiologically younger maize plants.
- Treatment
- presence of the mycorrhizal fungus in the non‐legumee7
- Interactor
- mycorrhizal funguse7symbiont
- Outcome
- transfer of symbiotically fixed nitrogene7
- Direction
- increasede7
- Qualifier
- physiologically youngere7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“In spite of the 2 cm root‐free separating zone, the presence of the mycorrhizal fungus in the non‐legume increased the transfer of symbiotically fixed nitrogen from berseem to maize plants that were physiologically younger”
The same questions in other papers
mycorrhiza · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
39 papers more in this group
See all 43 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
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 169 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
184 papers more in this group
See all 188 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.