Abstract
Symbiotic associations between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and plant roots are widespread in natural environments and provide a range of benefits to the host plant. These include improved nutrition, enhanced resistance to soil-borne pests, diseases, and drought, as well as tolerance to heavy metals. In addition, the presence of a well developed AMF hyphal network improve the soil structure. As obligate mutualistic symbionts these fungi colonize the roots of many agricultural crops and it is often claimed that agricultural practices (use of fertilizers and biocides, tillage, dominance of monocultures and the growing of non-mycorrhizal crops) are detrimental to AMF. As a result, agro ecosystems impoverished in AMF may not get the fully expected range of benefits from these fungi. Using molecular markers on DNA extracted directly from soil and roots we studied the effects of different management practices (tillage and nitrogen fertilization) on the AMF populations colonizing an experimental agro ecosystem in Central Italy. Fungi in roots and soil were identified by cloning and sequencing a region of 550bp of the 18S rDNA and 600bp of the 28S rDNA. In symbiosis with the maize roots we detected only members of Glomeraceae group A that showed decrement in number under nitrogen fertilization. Instead in soil were mainly present members of two AMF groups, respectively Gigasporaceae and Glomeraceae group A. In addition only the low input management practices preserve also members of Diversisporaceae and Glomeraceae group B. From our study we can conclude that agricultural practices can directly or indirectly influence AMF biodiversity. The result of this study highlight the importance and significant effects of the long term nitrogen fertilization and tillage practices on specific groups of fungi playing a key role in arable soils.
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
Only Glomeraceae group A was detected in symbiosis with maize roots.
- Organ / stage
- rootse0
- Interactor
- Glomeraceae group Ae0symbiont
- Outcome
- only members of Glomeraceae group Ae0
- Setting
- Central Italye1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In symbiosis with the maize roots we detected only members of Glomeraceae group A”
e1“in Central Italy”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilization decreased the number of Glomeraceae group A in maize roots.
- Organ / stage
- rootse0
- Treatment
- nitrogen fertilizatione0
- Interactor
- Glomeraceae group Ae0symbiont
- Outcome
- members of Glomeraceae group Ae0
- Direction
- decremente0
- Setting
- Central Italye1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In symbiosis with the maize roots we detected only members of Glomeraceae group A that showed decrement in number under nitrogen fertilization.”
e1“in Central Italy”
Claim · model-written summary
Gigasporaceae was mainly present in agricultural soil.
- Interactor
- GigasporaceaeGigasporaceaee0symbiont
- Outcome
- mainly presente0
- Qualifier
- in soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Instead in soil were mainly present members of two AMF groups, respectively Gigasporaceae and Glomeraceae group A.”
e1“In symbiosis with the maize roots”
Claim · model-written summary
Glomeraceae group A was mainly present in agricultural soil.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Instead in soil were mainly present members of two AMF groups, respectively Gigasporaceae and Glomeraceae group A.”
e1“In symbiosis with the maize roots”
Claim · model-written summary
Only low-input management preserved Diversisporaceae in the agroecosystem.
- Treatment
- low input management practicese0
- Interactor
- DiversisporaceaeDiversisporaceaee0symbiont
- Outcome
- members of Diversisporaceaee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only the low input management practices preserve also members of Diversisporaceae and Glomeraceae group B.”
e1“the maize roots”
Claim · model-written summary
Only low-input management preserved Glomeraceae group B in the agroecosystem.
- Treatment
- low input management practicese0
- Interactor
- Glomeraceae group Be0symbiont
- Outcome
- Glomeraceae group Be0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only the low input management practices preserve also members of Diversisporaceae and Glomeraceae group B.”
e1“the maize roots”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · organism · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 137 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
158 papers more in this group
See all 162 papers →cultivation system · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.