Abstract
An investigation was carried out to test the effect of VAM and peanut/wheat intercropping on iron accumulation and mobilization in root apoplast, and it's role in improving iron nutrition of peanut. Four treatments were set up, namely peanut monocropping without VAM, peanut monocropping with VAM, peanut/wheat intercropping without VAM, peanut/wheat intercropping with VAM. Plants were grown in sandly soil in pots separated by 30mm nylon nets. The results demonstrated that inoculated with VAM improved iron nutrition of peanut, under monocropping and intercropping condition, the content of root apoplastic iron pool, the chlorophyll content of young leaves and iron content of shoot in peanut plant inoculated with VAM were all greater than the control. Peanut/wheat intercropping also improved iron nutrition of peanut plant. There was the same effect on root apoplastic iron, chlorophyll content of young leaves and iron content of shoot as peanut inoculated with VAM. There was also a positive interaction between peanut inoculated with VAM and peanut/wheat intercropping on iron accumulation in root apoplast and improvement of iron nutrition of peanut plant.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut inoculated with VAM had greater root apoplastic iron pool, young-leaf chlorophyll content and shoot iron content than the control under both monocropping and intercropping.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae0 - Treatment
- inoculated with VAMe0
- Interactor
- VAMe0symbiont
- Outcome
- content of root apoplastic iron pool, the chlorophyll content of young leaves and iron content of shoote0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the content of root apoplastic iron pool, the chlorophyll content of young leaves and iron content of shoot in peanut plant inoculated with VAM were all greater than the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut/wheat intercropping also improved iron nutrition of peanut.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- Peanut/wheat intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- iron nutrition of peanut plante0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Peanut/wheat intercropping also improved iron nutrition of peanut plant”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping had the same effect on root apoplastic iron, young-leaf chlorophyll and shoot iron as VAM inoculation.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- Peanut/wheat intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- root apoplastic iron, chlorophyll content of young leaves and iron content of shoote1
- Direction
- same effecte1
- Comparator
- peanut inoculated with VAMe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Peanut/wheat intercropping also improved iron nutrition of peanut plant”
e1“There was the same effect on root apoplastic iron, chlorophyll content of young leaves and iron content of shoot as peanut inoculated with VAM”
Claim · model-written summary
There was a positive interaction between VAM inoculation and peanut/wheat intercropping on iron accumulation in the root apoplast and on iron nutrition of peanut.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- peanut/wheat intercroppinge0
- Interactor
- VAMe0symbiont
- Outcome
- iron accumulation in root apoplast and improvement of iron nutritione0
- Direction
- positive interactione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was also a positive interaction between peanut inoculated with VAM and peanut/wheat intercropping on iron accumulation in root apoplast and improvement of iron nutrition of peanut plant”
The same questions in other papers
Triticum aestivum · physiology: pigments · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Triticum aestivum · nutrient: content · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results 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 · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →inoculation · physiology: pigments · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →intercropping · nutrient: content · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →intercropping · physiology: pigments · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.