Paper · 2015

The effects of two arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on some physical properties of a sandy loam soil and nutrients uptake by spring barley

Fariba Samaei; Shokrollah Asghari; Nasser Aliasgharzad

5
claims
12
verbatim quotes
6
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The coarse-textured soils have mainly macrospores, therefore, water and nutrients holding capacity of these soils is considerably low. Although the effects of mycorrhizal fungi on physical properties and nutrients uptake has been studied in fine- textured soils but the effect of these fungi on physical properties and nutrients uptake in coarse-textured soils has not been studied. A completely randomized block experimental design was conducted with two species of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi including Glomus intraradices (GI), Glomus etunicatum (GE) and a non-mycorrhizal (control) undergrowth of spring barley with four replications in a sterilized sandy loam soil under greenhouse conditions. The results showed that GI and GE fungi significantly (P < 0.01) increased the mean weight diameter of aggregates by 113.6 and 201.8%, mesopores by 20.8 and 27.8% and microspores by 5 and 14.1%, total porosity by 2.2 and 2.6%, available water capacity by 13.3 and 27.1%, while decreased macropores by 9.5 and 17.3% and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) by 68.8 and 88.2% relative to the control, respectively. Furthermore, the percentages of increase were 45.9 and 164 for potassium and 53.5 and 135.1 for phosphorus in GI and GE relative to the control, respectively. According to the results of this study, mycorrhizal symbiosis improved physical quality and nutrients uptake of the alkaline coarse-textured soil.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Glomus intraradices increased aggregate mean weight diameter by 113.6%.

Taxon
spring barleyHordeum vulgaret0
Treatment
GIe0
Interactor
Glomus intraradicesRhizophagus intraradicese0symbiont
Outcome
mean weight diameter of aggregatese1
Direction
increasede1
Value
113.6e1
Comparator
non-mycorrhizal (control)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–134 · show in text ↑
e0

“Glomus intraradices (GI), Glomus etunicatum (GE) and a non-mycorrhizal (control) undergrowth of spring barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 506–615 · show in text ↑
e1

“GI and GE fungi significantly (P < 0.01) increased the mean weight diameter of aggregates by 113.6 and 201.8%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 724–833 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Glomus etunicatum increased aggregate mean weight diameter by 201.8%.

Taxon
spring barleyHordeum vulgaret0
Treatment
GEe0
Interactor
Glomus etunicatume0symbiont
Outcome
mean weight diameter of aggregatese1
Direction
increasede1
Value
201.8%e1
Comparator
non-mycorrhizal (control)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–134 · show in text ↑
e0

“Glomus intraradices (GI), Glomus etunicatum (GE) and a non-mycorrhizal (control) undergrowth of spring barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 506–615 · show in text ↑
e1

“GI and GE fungi significantly (P < 0.01) increased the mean weight diameter of aggregates by 113.6 and 201.8%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 724–833 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The fungi increased mesopores, micropores, total porosity, and available water capacity.

Taxon
spring barleyHordeum vulgaret0
Treatment
GI and GE fungie0
Outcome
mesoporese0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–134 · show in text ↑
e0

“GI and GE fungi significantly (P < 0.01) increased the mean weight diameter of aggregates by 113.6 and 201.8%, mesopores by 20.8 and 27.8% and microspores by 5 and 14.1%, total porosity by 2.2 and 2.6%, available water capacity by 13.3 and 27.1%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 724–969 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The fungi decreased macropores and saturated hydraulic conductivity.

Taxon
spring barleyHordeum vulgaret0
Outcome
macroporese0
Direction
decreasede0
Comparator
the controle0

Not reportedTreatment

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–134 · show in text ↑
e0

“while decreased macropores by 9.5 and 17.3% and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) by 68.8 and 88.2% relative to the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 971–1098 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The fungi increased potassium and phosphorus uptake.

Taxon
spring barleyHordeum vulgaret0
Treatment
GI and GEe0
Outcome
potassiume0
Direction
increasee0
Comparator
the controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–134 · show in text ↑
e0

“the percentages of increase were 45.9 and 164 for potassium and 53.5 and 135.1 for phosphorus in GI and GE relative to the control, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1127–1271 · show in text ↑

Glomus · growth · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

Rhizophagus intraradices · nutrient: content · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
See all 2 papers →

Rhizophagus intraradices · growth · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 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.