Abstract
We examined the tradeoff between nutrient supplementation and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) in flax in a long-term experiment. Organic manured (ORG M) and conventional (CONV) treatments produced 39% and 36% more biomass, respectively, than organic non-manured (ORG NM) flax, illustrating the need for nutrient supplementation. ORG NM had 22% and 54% more AMF than ORG M and CONV, respectively. While ORG M flax produced similar biomass to CONV, it recorded 42% greater AMF colonization. This supported our hypothesis that long-term manure application would have similar yield potential (i.e., biomass production) to mineral fertilization but maintain higher AMF colonization.
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
Organic manured flax produced 39% more biomass than organic non-manured flax.
- Taxon
- flax
Linum usitatissimume0 - Treatment
- Organic manured (ORG M)e0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 39%e0
- Comparator
- organic non-manured (ORG NM)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Organic manured (ORG M) and conventional (CONV) treatments produced 39% and 36% more biomass, respectively, than organic non-manured (ORG NM) flax”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional flax produced 36% more biomass than organic non-manured flax.
- Taxon
- flaxLinum usitatissimume0
- Treatment
- conventional (CONV)e0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 36%e0
- Comparator
- organic non-manured (ORG NM)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Organic manured (ORG M) and conventional (CONV) treatments produced 39% and 36% more biomass, respectively, than organic non-manured (ORG NM) flax”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic non-manured flax had 22% more AMF than organic manured flax.
- Taxon
- flaxLinum usitatissimumt0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- AMFe0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 22%e0
- Comparator
- ORG Me0
Not reportedMaterial
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ORG NM had 22% and 54% more AMF than ORG M and CONV, respectively”
t0“flax”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic non-manured flax had 54% more AMF than conventional flax.
- Taxon
- flaxLinum usitatissimumt0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- AMFe0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 54%e0
- Comparator
- CONVe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ORG NM had 22% and 54% more AMF than ORG M and CONV, respectively”
t0“flax”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic manured flax had 42% greater AMF colonization than conventional flax.
- Taxon
- flaxLinum usitatissimume0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- AMF colonizatione0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 42%e0
- Comparator
- CONVe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ORG M flax produced similar biomass to CONV, it recorded 42% greater AMF colonization”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic manured flax produced biomass similar to conventional flax.
- Taxon
- flaxLinum usitatissimume0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- CONVe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ORG M flax produced similar biomass to CONV”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · growth · Linum usitatissimum (flax)Positive and negative results
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 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.