Abstract
Winter cover crops increase the amount of indigenous arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) in the soil, providing beneficial effects such as enhancement of phosphorus uptake by the subsequent crop. However, its impact on the AMF community structure is not well understood. In the present study, we aimed to reveal the effect of winter wheat cover cropping with no-till cultivation on the AMF community structures in soil and roots of the subsequent soybean. For this purpose, we conducted a field experiment consisting of two treatments, no-till soybean cultivation after winter wheat cover cropping (NTWC) and conventional soybean cultivation after winter fallow management as a control (CONT). At the flowering stage of soybean, higher AMF colonization of soybean roots was observed in the NTWC plots compared with the CONT plots. Additionally, aboveground biomass and phosphorus uptake of soybean in the NTWC plots were significantly higher than those in the CONT plots. Molecular community analyses based on PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) of AMF 18S rRNA genes indicated that the AMF community structures in the soil and soybean root of the NTWC plots were clearly different from those of the CONT plots. The DGGE profiles showed that the wheat cover cropping preferentially increased some phylotypes belonging to Glomeraceae and Claroideoglomeraceae. In addition, most of the phylotypes were characteristically observed in the subsequent soybean root of the NTWC plots, strongly suggesting that these phylotypes colonizing the cover crop wheat were taken over by the subsequent soybean. Our study revealed the significant effect of winter cover cropping with no-till cultivation on the structure of AMF community colonizing the subsequent soybean.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean root AMF colonization was higher after winter wheat cover cropping and no-till cultivation than under conventional soybean after fallow.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- NTWC plotse0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- AMF colonization of soybean rootse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- CONT plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At the flowering stage of soybean, higher AMF colonization of soybean roots was observed in the NTWC plots compared with the CONT plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean aboveground biomass was significantly higher under NTWC than CONT.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- NTWC plotse0
- Outcome
- aboveground biomasse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- CONT plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground biomass and phosphorus uptake of soybean in the NTWC plots were significantly higher than those in the CONT plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean phosphorus uptake was significantly higher under NTWC than CONT.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- NTWC plotse0
- Outcome
- phosphorus uptakee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- CONT plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground biomass and phosphorus uptake of soybean in the NTWC plots were significantly higher than those in the CONT plots”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF community structures in soil and soybean roots differed between NTWC and CONT.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- NTWC plotse0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- AMF community structures in the soil and soybean roote0
- Direction
- clearly differente0
- Comparator
- CONT plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AMF community structures in the soil and soybean root of the NTWC plots were clearly different from those of the CONT plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat cover cropping preferentially increased Glomeraceae phylotypes.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- wheat cover croppinge0
- Interactor
- GlomeraceaeGlomeraceaee0symbiont
- Outcome
- phylotypes belonging to Glomeraceaee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat cover cropping preferentially increased some phylotypes belonging to Glomeraceae and Claroideoglomeraceae”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat cover cropping preferentially increased Claroideoglomeraceae phylotypes.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- wheat cover croppinge0
- Interactor
- ClaroideoglomeraceaeEntrophosporaceaee0symbiont
- Outcome
- phylotypes belonging to Glomeraceae and Claroideoglomeraceaee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat cover cropping preferentially increased some phylotypes belonging to Glomeraceae and Claroideoglomeraceae”
Claim · model-written summary
Most phylotypes were characteristic of subsequent soybean roots in NTWC plots, suggesting transfer from wheat.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Interactor
- phylotypese0symbiont
- Outcome
- phylotypese0
- Qualifier
- strongly suggesting that these phylotypes colonizing the cover crop wheat were taken over by the subsequent soybeane0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“most of the phylotypes were characteristically observed in the subsequent soybean root of the NTWC plots, strongly suggesting that these phylotypes colonizing the cover crop wheat were taken over by the subsequent soybean”
The same questions in other papers
Triticum aestivum · nutrient: content · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →Triticum aestivum · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →Triticum aestivum · disease · Glycine max (soybean)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
tillage · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
80 papers more in this group
See all 84 papers →cover crop · disease · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
cover crop · nutrient: content · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →tillage · disease · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →cover crop · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.