Abstract
Many studies describe the positive effect of mycorrhiza, but few report on negative effects. Furthermore, there is a research gap on the mechanisms under which conditions the symbiotic mycorrhizal plant interaction or a parasitic one predominates. The study was conducted as a field experiment over three years to investigate the effect of mycorrhiza (Rhizoglomus intraradices) and soil bacteria applications on fertile soil. A standard fertilizer (diammonium phosphate) and two microgranular fertilizers (mineral and organomineral) were applied alone or in combination with the biostimulants mycorrhiza and/or soil bacteria (Bacillus velezensis). The application of the mycorrhiza as the only biostimulant resulted in lower yields compared to all fertilizer variants without the mycorrhiza or with mycorrhiza in combination with soil bacteria in the dry years 2015 (p = 0.0241) and 2016 (p = 0.0003). The usage of soil bacteria alone, or soil bacteria with fertilizer, resulted in few occasional significant differences. The combination with soil bacteria raised the yield of mycorrhiza-treated fertilizer variants to a significant extent in 2015 (p = 0.0007) and 2016 (p = 0.0019). The negative effects of mycorrhiza application in this study were alleviated by the simultaneous use of soil bacteria. Treatments with organomineral microgranular fertilizer, which were expected to promote the naturally occurring soil microbiome more than the mineral fertilizer variants, were most negatively affected by the mycorrhiza. We hypothesize that the naturally occurring microbiome of the study site was already optimal for maize plants, and thus the successful introduction of other microorganisms through the application of the mycorrhiza and soil bacteria tended not to be beneficial. The present study is the first report on the negative influence of arbuscular mycorrhiza on maize yields gained with a standard fertilizer (diammonium phosphate) and two microgranular fertilizer, and the alleviation of that impact by combined application of soil bacteria. We conclude that the application of the used biostimulants may have negative impacts on maize yield if the soil is already rich in nutrients and water is the limiting factor.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhiza alone as a biostimulant lowered maize yields relative to fertilizer variants without mycorrhiza or with mycorrhiza plus soil bacteria in the dry years 2015 and 2016.
- Treatment
- application of the mycorrhiza as the only biostimulante0
- Interactor
- Rhizoglomus intraradicese1symbiont
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- dry years 2015 (p = 0.0241) and 2016 (p = 0.0003)e0
- Comparator
- all fertilizer variants without the mycorrhiza or with mycorrhiza in combination with soil bacteriae0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Plants (Zea mays)”
e0“The application of the mycorrhiza as the only biostimulant resulted in lower yields compared to all fertilizer variants without the mycorrhiza or with mycorrhiza in combination with soil bacteria in the dry years 2015 (p = 0.0241) and 2016 (p = 0.0003).”
e1“mycorrhiza (Rhizoglomus intraradices)”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil bacteria alone or with fertilizer produced few occasional significant yield differences.
- Treatment
- soil bacteria alone, or soil bacteria with fertilizere0
- Interactor
- Bacillus velezensis
Bacillus velezensise1symbiont - Outcome
- few occasional significant differencese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Plants (Zea mays)”
e0“The usage of soil bacteria alone, or soil bacteria with fertilizer, resulted in few occasional significant differences.”
e1“soil bacteria (Bacillus velezensis)”
Claim · model-written summary
Combining soil bacteria with mycorrhiza treated fertilizer significantly raised maize yield in 2015 and 2016.
- Treatment
- combination with soil bacteriae0
- Interactor
- Bacillus velezensisBacillus velezensise1symbiont
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- raisede0
- Qualifier
- 2015 (p = 0.0007) and 2016 (p = 0.0019)e0
- Comparator
- mycorrhiza-treated fertilizer variantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Plants (Zea mays)”
e0“The combination with soil bacteria raised the yield of mycorrhiza-treated fertilizer variants to a significant extent in 2015 (p = 0.0007) and 2016 (p = 0.0019).”
e1“soil bacteria (Bacillus velezensis)”
Claim · model-written summary
Organomineral microgranular fertilizer treatments were most negatively affected by mycorrhiza.
- Treatment
- mycorrhizae0
- Outcome
- Treatments with organomineral microgranular fertilizere0
- Direction
- most negatively affectede0
- Comparator
- mineral fertilizer variantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Plants (Zea mays)”
e0“Treatments with organomineral microgranular fertilizer, which were expected to promote the naturally occurring soil microbiome more than the mineral fertilizer variants, were most negatively affected by the mycorrhiza.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors hypothesize that the site microbiome was already optimal for maize, so introduced microorganisms tended not to benefit the plants.
- Treatment
- application of the mycorrhiza and soil bacteriae0
- Outcome
- tended not to be beneficiale0
- Qualifier
- naturally occurring microbiome of the study site was already optimale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Plants (Zea mays)”
e0“We hypothesize that the naturally occurring microbiome of the study site was already optimal for maize plants, and thus the successful introduction of other microorganisms through the application of the mycorrhiza and soil bacteria tended not to be beneficial.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that applying these biostimulants may reduce maize yield where soil is nutrient rich and water is limiting.
- Outcome
- application of the used biostimulants may have negative impacts on maize yielde0
- Qualifier
- if the soil is already rich in nutrients and water is the limiting factore0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Plants (Zea mays)”
e0“We conclude that the application of the used biostimulants may have negative impacts on maize yield if the soil is already rich in nutrients and water is the limiting factor.”
The same questions in other papers
mycorrhiza · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 104 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
109 papers more in this group
See all 113 papers →other · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 221 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
249 papers more in this group
See all 253 papers →inoculation · Bacillus velezensis · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.