Paper · 2018 · Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

The Effect of Mycorrhiza Inoculation and Phosphorus Application on Phosphorus Efficiency of Wheat Plants

Ibrahim Ortas; Alexandra Bykova

10
claims
18
verbatim quotes
21
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The effect of indigenous soil and selected mycorrhizal inoculation and phosphorus (P) applications on wheat yield, root infection and nutrient uptake was monitored for two successive years under field conditions. In addition, phosphorus efficiency and inoculation effectiveness (IE) were determined. Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) plants were used as host plants in a Menzilat soil series (Typic Xerofluvents) in the Mediterranean coastal region of Turkey. Three levels of phosphorus were applied with Glomus mosseae to wheat plants over two successive years. Mycorrhizal inoculation significantly increased root colonization. G. mosseae-inoculated plants in both years exhibited a two-fold higher root colonization than the indigenous mycorrhizal colonization. Compared with non-inoculated plants, mycorrhizal inoculation increased wheat yield for both years. In addition, increasing P fertilizer levels enhanced the wheat grain yield. In both years, the inoculum efficiency (IE) decreased with increasing P level addition. Phosphorus efficiency is higher under low P application than the higher P application. However, with mycorrhizal inoculation P efficiency is higher than the non-inoculated treatment.The effects of mycorrhizal inoculation on plant nutrient concentrations were determined: mycorrhiza-inoculated plants exhibited a higher zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), iron (Fe) nutrients concentration than non-inoculated plants. After two years of field experiments, it is concluded that mycorrhizal inoculation can be used in large arable areas; however, it is also very important to manage the indigenous mycorrhiza of arable land.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Mycorrhizal inoculation significantly increased wheat root colonization.

Treatment
Mycorrhizal inoculatione0
Interactor
Mycorrhizale0symbiont
Outcome
root colonizatione0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Mycorrhizal inoculation significantly increased root colonization.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 558–624 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat yield, root infection and nutrient uptake”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 102–149 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Glomus mosseae inoculated wheat had two-fold higher root colonization than indigenous mycorrhizal colonization in both years.

Treatment
G. mosseae-inoculatede0
Interactor
G. mosseaeFunneliformis mosseaee0symbiont
Outcome
root colonizatione0
Direction
highere0
Value
two-folde0
Comparator
indigenous mycorrhizal colonizatione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Funneliformis mosseae
Funneliformis mosseae · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categorySamson90 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“G. mosseae-inoculated plants in both years exhibited a two-fold higher root colonization than the indigenous mycorrhizal colonization.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 625–759 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat plants over two successive years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 518–556 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mycorrhizal inoculation increased wheat yield compared with non-inoculated plants in both years.

Treatment
mycorrhizal inoculatione0
Interactor
mycorrhizale0symbiont
Outcome
wheat yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
non-inoculated plantse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Compared with non-inoculated plants, mycorrhizal inoculation increased wheat yield for both years.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 760–858 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing phosphorus fertilizer levels enhanced wheat grain yield.

Treatment
increasing P fertilizer levelse0
Outcome
wheat grain yielde0
Direction
enhancede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increasing P fertilizer levels enhanced the wheat grain yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 872–934 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculum efficiency decreased as phosphorus addition increased in both years.

Treatment
increasing P level additione0
Outcome
inoculum efficiency (IE)e0
Direction
decreasede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In both years, the inoculum efficiency (IE) decreased with increasing P level addition.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 935–1022 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat plants over two successive years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 518–556 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phosphorus efficiency was higher under low than higher phosphorus application.

Treatment
low P applicatione0
Outcome
Phosphorus efficiencye0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
higher P applicatione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Phosphorus efficiency is higher under low P application than the higher P application.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1023–1109 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat plants over two successive years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 518–556 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mycorrhizal inoculation gave higher phosphorus efficiency than the non-inoculated treatment.

Treatment
mycorrhizal inoculatione0
Interactor
mycorrhizale0symbiont
Outcome
P efficiencye0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
non-inoculated treatmente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“with mycorrhizal inoculation P efficiency is higher than the non-inoculated treatment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1119–1205 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat plants over two successive years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 518–556 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mycorrhiza inoculated wheat had higher zinc, manganese, copper and iron concentrations than non-inoculated plants.

Treatment
mycorrhiza-inoculatede0
Interactor
mycorrhizae0symbiont
Outcome
zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), iron (Fe) nutrients concentratione0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
non-inoculated plantse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“mycorrhiza-inoculated plants exhibited a higher zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), iron (Fe) nutrients concentration than non-inoculated plants.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1294–1443 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat plants over two successive years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 518–556 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors conclude that mycorrhizal inoculation can be used across large arable areas.

Interactor
mycorrhizale0symbiont
Outcome
mycorrhizal inoculation can be used in large arable arease0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“mycorrhizal inoculation can be used in large arable areas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1503–1560 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat plants over two successive years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 518–556 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend managing indigenous mycorrhiza in arable land.

Interactor
indigenous mycorrhizae0symbiont
Outcome
manage the indigenous mycorrhiza of arable lande0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“it is also very important to manage the indigenous mycorrhiza of arable land.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1571–1648 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat plants over two successive years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 518–556 · show in text ↑

mycorrhiza · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

80 papers: 71 positive, 9 negative or no effect

70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

76 papers more in this group

See all 80 papers →

mycorrhiza · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

103 papers: 95 positive, 8 negative or no effect

94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

99 papers more in this group

See all 103 papers →

inoculation · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

164 papers: 104 positive, 60 negative or no effect

103 papers in the same direction as this paper · 59 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

160 papers more in this group

See all 164 papers →

inoculation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

614 papers: 549 positive, 65 negative or no effect

548 papers in the same direction as this paper · 60 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

610 papers more in this group

See all 614 papers →

fertilization · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

3,438 papers: 3,115 positive, 323 negative or no effect

3,114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 284 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

3,434 papers more in this group

See all 3,438 papers →

mycorrhiza · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

27 papers: 27 positive, 0 negative or no effect

26 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

23 papers more in this group

See all 27 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.