Abstract
Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi have been shown to be associated with an estimated 70 % of vascular terrestrial plants. Such relationships have been shown to be sensitive to soil disturbance, for example, tillage in the preparation of a seed bed. From the application of arable soil management, AM fungal populations have been shown to be negatively impacted in abundance and diversity, reducing plant growth and development. The present study aims to utilise two sources (multipurpose compost and a commercial inocula) of mycorrhizal fungi for the amendment of arable soils supporting Zulu winter wheat under controlled conditions and quantify plant growth responses. A total of nine fields across three participating farms were sampled, each farm practicing either conventional, reduced, or zero tillage soil management exclusively. Soil textures were assessed for each sampled soil. Via the employment of AM fungal symbiosis quantification methods, AM fungi were compared between soil amendments and their effects on crop growth and development. The present study was able to quantify a mean 6 cm increase to crop height ( P <0.001), 10 cm reduction to root length corresponding with a 2.45-fold increase in AM fungal arbuscular structures ( P <0.001), a 1.15-fold increase in soil glomalin concentration corresponding to a 1.26-fold increase in soil carbon, and a 1.32-fold increase in the relative abundance of molecular identified AM fungal sequences for compost amended soils compared to control samples. Mycorrhizal inocula, however, saw no change to crop height or root length, AM fungal arbuscules were reduced by 1.43-fold, soil glomalin was additionally reduced by 1.55-fold corresponding to a reduction in soil carbon by 1.31-fold, and a reduction to relative AM fungal species abundance by 1.26-fold. The present study can conclude the addition of compost as an arable soil amendment is more beneficial for the restoration of AM fungi beneficial to wheat production and soil carbon compared to the addition of a commercial mycorrhizal inocula.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Compost amendment increased wheat height by a mean 6 cm versus controls.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume2 - Material
- Zulue2
- Treatment
- composte1
- Outcome
- crop heighte0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 6 cme0
- Comparator
- control samplese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a mean 6 cm increase to crop height ( P <0.001)”
e1“for compost amended soils compared to control samples”
e2“Zulu winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost amendment reduced wheat root length by 10 cm versus controls.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- composte1
- Outcome
- root lengthe0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 10 cme0
- Comparator
- control samplese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“10 cm reduction to root length”
e1“for compost amended soils compared to control samples”
e2“Zulu winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost amendment increased AM fungal arbuscular structures 2.45-fold versus controls.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- composte1
- Interactor
- AM fungale0symbiont
- Outcome
- AM fungal arbuscular structurese0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 2.45-folde0
- Comparator
- control samplese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a 2.45-fold increase in AM fungal arbuscular structures ( P <0.001)”
e1“for compost amended soils compared to control samples”
e2“Zulu winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost amendment increased soil glomalin concentration 1.15-fold.
- Treatment
- composte1
- Outcome
- soil glomalin concentratione0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 1.15-folde0
- Comparator
- control samplese1
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“a 1.15-fold increase in soil glomalin concentration”
e1“for compost amended soils compared to control samples”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost amendment increased soil carbon 1.26-fold.
- Treatment
- composte1
- Outcome
- soil carbone0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 1.26-folde0
- Comparator
- control samplese1
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“a 1.26-fold increase in soil carbon”
e1“for compost amended soils compared to control samples”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost amendment increased the relative abundance of molecularly identified AM fungal sequences 1.32-fold.
Verbatim
e0“a 1.32-fold increase in the relative abundance of molecular identified AM fungal sequences for compost amended soils compared to control samples”
Claim · model-written summary
Commercial mycorrhizal inocula did not change wheat height or root length.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Mycorrhizal inoculae0
- Interactor
- Mycorrhizale0symbiont
- Outcome
- crop height or root lengthe0
- Direction
- no changee0
- Comparator
- control samplese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mycorrhizal inocula, however, saw no change to crop height or root length”
e1“Zulu winter wheat”
e2“compared to control samples”
Claim · model-written summary
Commercial mycorrhizal inocula reduced AM fungal arbuscules 1.43-fold.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- Mycorrhizal inoculae1
- Interactor
- AM fungale0symbiont
- Outcome
- AM fungal arbusculese0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 1.43-folde0
- Comparator
- control samplese3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AM fungal arbuscules were reduced by 1.43-fold”
e1“Mycorrhizal inocula, however”
e2“Zulu winter wheat”
e3“compared to control samples”
Claim · model-written summary
Commercial mycorrhizal inocula reduced soil glomalin 1.55-fold.
- Treatment
- Mycorrhizal inoculae1
- Outcome
- soil glomaline0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 1.55-folde0
- Comparator
- control samplese2
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“soil glomalin was additionally reduced by 1.55-fold”
e1“Mycorrhizal inocula, however”
e2“compared to control samples”
Claim · model-written summary
Commercial mycorrhizal inocula reduced soil carbon 1.31-fold.
- Treatment
- Mycorrhizal inoculae1
- Outcome
- soil carbone0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 1.31-folde0
- Comparator
- control samplese2
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“a reduction in soil carbon by 1.31-fold”
e1“Mycorrhizal inocula, however”
e2“compared to control samples”
Claim · model-written summary
Commercial mycorrhizal inocula reduced relative AM fungal species abundance 1.26-fold.
Verbatim
e0“a reduction to relative AM fungal species abundance by 1.26-fold”
e1“Mycorrhizal inocula, however”
e2“compared to control samples”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude compost is more beneficial than commercial mycorrhizal inocula for restoring AM fungi beneficial to wheat production and soil carbon.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- addition of composte0
- Interactor
- AM fungiGlomeromycotae0symbiont
- Outcome
- restoration of AM fungi beneficial to wheat production and soil carbone0
- Direction
- more beneficiale0
- Comparator
- addition of a commercial mycorrhizal inoculae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the addition of compost as an arable soil amendment is more beneficial for the restoration of AM fungi beneficial to wheat production and soil carbon compared to the addition of a commercial mycorrhizal inocula”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · symbiosis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →mycorrhiza · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →inoculation · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 44 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →mycorrhiza · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 69 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 papers →fertilization · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
189 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
210 papers more in this group
See all 214 papers →fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
231 papers in the same direction as this paper · 54 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
284 papers more in this group
See all 288 papers →inoculation · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
55 papers in the same direction as this paper · 476 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
528 papers more in this group
See all 532 papers →fertilization · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
662 papers in the same direction as this paper · 89 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
751 papers more in this group
See all 755 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.