Abstract
A field experiment was conducted to study the effects of carbon amendments, tillage, and cover cropping on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) association and root architecture at Farm Services at Texas A&M University. Three levels of carbon amendments at the rate of 500 kg C ha−1 (biochar, composted biosolid, and control (no carbon amendment)), two levels of tillage (conventional disking (CT) and no tillage (NT)), and two levels of cover crop (a mixture of oat, mustard, and pea (CC) and no cover crop (NCC)) were arranged in a split-split plot design with four replications. Over a two-year crop sequence of corn followed by cotton, AMF colonization of roots was 4.43% greater in biochar-treated soil than in the control treatment. Colonization in cotton was 5.17% and 6.09% greater under NT and CC treatments, respectively, compared to CT and NCC. Carbon amendments did not alter corn root length but did alter root angle at 20–30 cm. Carbon amendments did not affect root angle under CC. However, tillage did affect CC root length and angle. Root length and root angle were found to differ among the cover crop species. The results imply that farmers may combine certain practices to optimize and harness the benefits of AMF.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar increased AMF root colonization by 4.43% versus control over the corn-cotton sequence.
Verbatim
e0“Over a two-year crop sequence of corn followed by cotton, AMF colonization of roots was 4.43% greater in biochar-treated soil than in the control treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage increased cotton AMF colonization by 5.17% compared with conventional disking.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- NTe0
- Interactor
- AMFe2symbiont
- Outcome
- Colonization in cottone0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 5.17%e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Colonization in cotton was 5.17% and 6.09% greater under NT and CC treatments, respectively, compared to CT and NCC”
e1“conventional disking (CT) and no tillage (NT)”
e2“arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) association”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover cropping increased cotton AMF colonization by 6.09% compared with no cover crop.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- CCe0
- Interactor
- AMFe1symbiont
- Outcome
- Colonization in cottone0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 6.09%e0
- Comparator
- NCCe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Colonization in cotton was 5.17% and 6.09% greater under NT and CC treatments, respectively, compared to CT and NCC”
e1“arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) association”
Claim · model-written summary
Carbon amendments did not change corn root length.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- Carbon amendmentse0
- Outcome
- corn root lengthe0
- Direction
- did not altere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Carbon amendments did not alter corn root length”
Claim · model-written summary
Carbon amendments changed corn root angle at 20–30 cm.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- Carbon amendmentse0
- Outcome
- root anglee0
- Qualifier
- 20–30 cme0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Carbon amendments did not alter corn root length but did alter root angle at 20–30 cm”
e1“crop sequence of corn followed by cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Carbon amendments did not affect root angle under cover cropping.
- Taxon
- corn followed by cottone1
- Treatment
- Carbon amendmentse0
- Outcome
- root anglee0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Qualifier
- under CCe0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Carbon amendments did not affect root angle under CC”
e1“crop sequence of corn followed by cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage affected root length under cover cropping.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“tillage did affect CC root length and angle”
e1“crop sequence of corn followed by cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage affected root angle under cover cropping.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“tillage did affect CC root length and angle”
e1“crop sequence of corn followed by cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Root length differed among cover crop species.
Verbatim
e0“Root length and root angle were found to differ among the cover crop species”
e1“a mixture of oat, mustard, and pea (CC)”
Claim · model-written summary
Root angle differed among cover crop species.
Verbatim
e0“Root length and root angle were found to differ among the cover crop species”
e1“a mixture of oat, mustard, and pea (CC)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest combining practices to optimize AMF benefits.
Verbatim
e0“farmers may combine certain practices to optimize and harness the benefits of AMF”
e1“crop sequence of corn followed by cotton”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · disease · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →other · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 164 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
180 papers more in this group
See all 184 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.