Abstract
Abstract Plants grown in acidic soil usually require relatively high amounts of available phosphorus (P) to optimize growth and productivity, and sources of available P are often added to meet these requirements. Phosphorus may also be made available at relatively high rates in native soil when roots are colonized with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). Addition of P to soil usually reduces root‐AMF colonization and decreases beneficial effects ofAMF to plants. In glasshouse experiments, soil treatments of P [0 P (Control), 50 mg soluble‐P kg−1 as KH2PO4 (SP), and 200 mg P kg−1 as phosphate rock (PR)], organic matter (OM) at 12.5 g kg−1, AMF (Glomus darum), and various combinations of these (OM+SP, OM+PR, AMF+SP, AMF+PR, AMF+OM, AMF+OM+SP, and AMF+OM+PR) were added to steam treated acidic Lily soil (Typic Hapludult, pHw=5.8) to determine treatment effects on growth and mineral acquisition by chickpea (Cicer areitinum L.). The various treatment applications increased shoot dry matter (DM) above the Control, but not root DM. Percentage AMF‐root colonization increased 2‐fold or more when mycorrhizal plants were grown with AMF, OM+SP, and OM+PR. Regardless of P source, plant acquisition of P, sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), and potassium (K) was enhanced compared to the Control, and mineral enhancement was greater in PR compared to SP plants. Mycorrhizal plants also had enhanced acquisition of macronutrients. OM+SP and OM+PR enhanced acquisition of P, K, and Mg, but not Ca. Concentrations of Fe, Mn, Cu, and Al were generally lower than Controls in SP, RP, AMF+PR, AMF+SP, and OM plants, and mycorrhizal plants especially had enhanced micronutrients. Relative agronomic effectiveness values for shoot DM and shoot P, Ca, and Mg contents were considerably higher for PR, including OM+PR, AMF+PR, and AMF+OM+PR, than for SP. PR and OM applications to AMF plants are low‐cost attractive and ecologically sound alternatives to intensive use of P fertilizers for crops grown in acidic soils.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
The treatment applications increased shoot dry matter over control.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinumt0 - Treatment
- various treatment applicationse0
- Outcome
- shoot dry matter (DM)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- Controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The various treatment applications increased shoot dry matter (DM) above the Control, but not root DM.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatment applications did not increase root dry matter over control.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- various treatment applicationse0
- Outcome
- root DMe0
- Direction
- note0
- Comparator
- Controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The various treatment applications increased shoot dry matter (DM) above the Control, but not root DM.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF root colonization rose at least twofold under the listed mycorrhizal treatments.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- AMF, OM+SP, and OM+PRe0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- Percentage AMF‐root colonizatione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 2‐fold or moree0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Percentage AMF‐root colonization increased 2‐fold or more when mycorrhizal plants were grown with AMF, OM+SP, and OM+PR.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
P source enhanced plant acquisition of P, sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg) over control.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- P sourcee0
- Outcome
- P, sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg)e0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Comparator
- Controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regardless of P source, plant acquisition of P, sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), and potassium (K) was enhanced compared to the Control, and mineral enhancement was greater in PR compared to SP plants.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
P source enhanced plant acquisition of calcium (Ca), and potassium (K) over control.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- P sourcee0
- Outcome
- calcium (Ca), and potassium (K)e0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Comparator
- Controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regardless of P source, plant acquisition of P, sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), and potassium (K) was enhanced compared to the Control, and mineral enhancement was greater in PR compared to SP plants.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
PR produced greater mineral enhancement than SP.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- PRe0
- Outcome
- mineral enhancemente0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- SPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regardless of P source, plant acquisition of P, sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), and potassium (K) was enhanced compared to the Control, and mineral enhancement was greater in PR compared to SP plants.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal plants had enhanced macronutrient acquisition.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Interactor
- Mycorrhizale0symbiont
- Outcome
- acquisition of macronutrientse0
- Direction
- enhancede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mycorrhizal plants also had enhanced acquisition of macronutrients.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
OM plus SP and OM plus PR enhanced P, K and Mg acquisition.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- OM+SP and OM+PRe0
- Outcome
- acquisition of P, K, and Mge0
- Direction
- enhancede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“OM+SP and OM+PR enhanced acquisition of P, K, and Mg, but not Ca.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
OM plus SP and OM plus PR did not enhance Ca acquisition.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- OM+SP and OM+PRe0
- Outcome
- Cae0
- Direction
- note0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“OM+SP and OM+PR enhanced acquisition of P, K, and Mg, but not Ca.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Listed treatments generally lowered Fe, Mn, Cu concentrations versus control.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- SP, RP, AMF+PR, AMF+SP, and OMe0
- Outcome
- Fe, Mn, Cue0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- Controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Concentrations of Fe, Mn, Cu, and Al were generally lower than Controls in SP, RP, AMF+PR, AMF+SP, and OM plants, and mycorrhizal plants especially had enhanced micronutrients.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Listed treatments generally lowered Al concentrations versus control.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- SP, RP, AMF+PR, AMF+SP, and OMe0
- Outcome
- Ale0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- Controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Concentrations of Fe, Mn, Cu, and Al were generally lower than Controls in SP, RP, AMF+PR, AMF+SP, and OM plants, and mycorrhizal plants especially had enhanced micronutrients.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal plants had enhanced micronutrients.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Interactor
- mycorrhizale0symbiont
- Outcome
- micronutrientse0
- Direction
- enhancede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Concentrations of Fe, Mn, Cu, and Al were generally lower than Controls in SP, RP, AMF+PR, AMF+SP, and OM plants, and mycorrhizal plants especially had enhanced micronutrients.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
PR treatments had higher relative agronomic effectiveness for shoot DM than SP.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- PR, including OM+PR, AMF+PR, and AMF+OM+PRe0
- Outcome
- shoot DMe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- SPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative agronomic effectiveness values for shoot DM and shoot P, Ca, and Mg contents were considerably higher for PR, including OM+PR, AMF+PR, and AMF+OM+PR, than for SP.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
PR treatments had higher relative agronomic effectiveness for shoot P, Ca, and Mg contents than SP.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- PR, including OM+PR, AMF+PR, and AMF+OM+PRe0
- Outcome
- shoot P, Ca, and Mg contentse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- SPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative agronomic effectiveness values for shoot DM and shoot P, Ca, and Mg contents were considerably higher for PR, including OM+PR, AMF+PR, and AMF+OM+PR, than for SP.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend PR and OM for AMF crops on acidic soil as alternatives to intensive P fertilizer.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- PR and OM applications to AMF plantse0
- Qualifier
- acidic soilse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PR and OM applications to AMF plants are low‐cost attractive and ecologically sound alternatives to intensive use of P fertilizers for crops grown in acidic soils.”
t0“chickpea”
The same questions in other papers
phosphorus · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
54 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
54 papers more in this group
See all 58 papers →phosphorus · disease · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
organic · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →mycorrhiza · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →mycorrhiza · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →phosphorus · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →organic · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
7 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →mycorrhiza · disease · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
8 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.