Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the efficiency of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) to promote growth and cannabinoid yield of Cannabis sativa KKU05. A completely randomized design (CRD) was conducted with six replications for 60 days. Two different species of AMF, Rhizophagus prolifer PC2-2 and R. aggregatus BM-3 g3 were selected as inocula and compared with two non-mycorrhizal controls, one without synthetic fertilizer and one with synthetic NPK fertilizer. The unfertilized non-mycorrhizal plants had the lowest performance, whereas plants inoculated with R. aggregatus BM-3 g3 performed best, both in terms of plant biomass and concentrations of CBD and THC. There were no significant differences in plant biomass and cannabinoid concentrations between non-mycorrhizal plants that received synthetic fertilizer and mycorrhizal plants with inoculum of R. prolifer PC2-2. Our data demonstrate the great potential for cannabis cultivation without risking deterioration of soil structure, such as soil hardening and increased acidity, which might be induced by long-term use of synthetic fertilizer.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Plants inoculated with R. aggregatus BM-3 g3 performed best in biomass and CBD and THC concentrations relative to unfertilized non-mycorrhizal plants.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativa
Cannabis sativat0 - Treatment
- inoculated with R. aggregatus BM-3 g3e1
- Interactor
- R. aggregatus BM-3 g3Rhizophagus aggregatuse1symbiont
- Outcome
- plant biomass and concentrations of CBD and THCe1
- Direction
- performed beste1
- Comparator
- unfertilized non-mycorrhizal plantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e1“The unfertilized non-mycorrhizal plants had the lowest performance, whereas plants inoculated with R. aggregatus BM-3 g3 performed best, both in terms of plant biomass and concentrations of CBD and THC”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal plants inoculated with R. prolifer PC2-2 did not differ from non-mycorrhizal plants with synthetic fertilizer in biomass or cannabinoid concentrations.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- mycorrhizal plants with inoculum of R. prolifer PC2-2e2
- Interactor
- R. prolifer PC2-2Rhizophagus prolifere2symbiont
- Outcome
- plant biomass and cannabinoid concentrationse2
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede2
- Comparator
- non-mycorrhizal plants that received synthetic fertilizere2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e2“There were no significant differences in plant biomass and cannabinoid concentrations between non-mycorrhizal plants that received synthetic fertilizer and mycorrhizal plants with inoculum of R. prolifer PC2-2”
Claim · model-written summary
Unfertilized non-mycorrhizal plants had the lowest performance.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Treatment
- unfertilized non-mycorrhizal plantse1
- Outcome
- performancee1
- Direction
- loweste1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e1“The unfertilized non-mycorrhizal plants had the lowest performance, whereas plants inoculated with R. aggregatus BM-3 g3 performed best, both in terms of plant biomass and concentrations of CBD and THC”
Claim · model-written summary
Cannabis cultivation has great potential without risking deterioration of soil structure.
- Taxon
- Cannabis sativaCannabis sativat0
- Outcome
- cannabis cultivation without risking deterioration of soil structuree3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cannabis sativa”
e3“Our data demonstrate the great potential for cannabis cultivation without risking deterioration of soil structure”
The same questions in other papers
mycorrhiza · growth · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →inoculation · growth · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.