Abstract
Abstract Mycorrhizae improve plant nutrient uptake and are known to affect the water relations of plants grown in growth chambers and greenhouses. This paper summarizes a 3‐yr field study that tested the effects of mycorrhizae and water management on the growth and grain yield of maize ( Zea mays L.). In each year, two inoculation treatments (inoculated or not with Glomus etunicatum Becker and Gerdemann) and three water‐management treatments (fully irrigated, moderate stress, and severe stress) were applied to fumigated and fertilized Millhopper fine sand (loamy, siliceous, hyperthermic Grossarenic Paleudult). Inoculum was placed in a furrow 10 cm deep at an average rate of 1500 propagules per meter of row. Six to 7 wk after planting, colonization ranged from 0 to 6% of total root length on noninoculated plants and from 10 to 61% on inoculated plants. Twelve to 13 wk after planting, colonization ranged from 2 to 30% on noninoculated plants and from 21 to 56% on inoculated plants. Water stress had little effect on root colonization. By 52 d after planting, one more leaf had appeared and one additional leaf had formed a collar on inoculated plants. Inoculation increased the concentrations of P and Cu in both shoots and grain on all measurement dates. Overall, grain yields (0.306) and total above‐ground biomass yields (0.458 Mg ha ‐1 cm ‐1 of water) increased linearly with irrigation. A positive response to mycorrhizal inoculation was constant across irrigation levels (0.802 for grain and 1.170 Mg ha −1 for biomass). Therefore, the proportional response of maize to inoculation with G. etunicatum increased with increasing drought stress.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculated maize roots had 10 to 61% colonization at six to seven weeks versus 0 to 6% in uninoculated plants.
- Treatment
- inoculated plantse0
- Interactor
- Glomus etunicatume1symbiont
- Outcome
- colonizatione0
- Value
- 10 to 61%e0
- Qualifier
- 0 to 6%e0
- Comparator
- noninoculated plantse0
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Six to 7 wk after planting, colonization ranged from 0 to 6% of total root length on noninoculated plants and from 10 to 61% on inoculated plants.”
t0“Maize”
e1“Glomus etunicatum Becker and Gerdemann”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculated maize roots had 21 to 56% colonization at twelve to thirteen weeks versus 2 to 30% in uninoculated plants.
- Treatment
- inoculated plantse0
- Interactor
- Glomus etunicatume1symbiont
- Outcome
- colonizatione0
- Value
- 21 to 56%e0
- Qualifier
- 2 to 30%e0
- Comparator
- noninoculated plantse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Twelve to 13 wk after planting, colonization ranged from 2 to 30% on noninoculated plants and from 21 to 56% on inoculated plants.”
t0“Maize”
e1“Glomus etunicatum Becker and Gerdemann”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress had little effect on maize root colonization.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water stress had little effect on root colonization.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculated maize had one more appeared leaf by day 52.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“By 52 d after planting, one more leaf had appeared and one additional leaf had formed a collar on inoculated plants.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculated maize had one additional collared leaf by day 52.
- Treatment
- inoculated plantse0
- Outcome
- leaf had formed a collare0
- Direction
- additionale0
- Value
- one additionale0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“By 52 d after planting, one more leaf had appeared and one additional leaf had formed a collar on inoculated plants.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation increased shoot phosphorus and copper concentrations.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Inoculation increased the concentrations of P and Cu in both shoots and grain on all measurement dates.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation increased grain phosphorus and copper concentrations.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Inoculation increased the concentrations of P and Cu in both shoots and grain on all measurement dates.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield increased linearly with irrigation at 0.306.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yields (0.306) and total above‐ground biomass yields (0.458 Mg ha ‐1 cm ‐1 of water) increased linearly with irrigation.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Aboveground biomass yield increased linearly with irrigation at 0.458 Mg ha ‐1 cm ‐1 of water.
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- total above‐ground biomass yieldse0
- Direction
- increased linearlye0
- Value
- 0.458 Mg ha ‐1 cm ‐1 of watere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yields (0.306) and total above‐ground biomass yields (0.458 Mg ha ‐1 cm ‐1 of water) increased linearly with irrigation.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation raised grain yield by a constant 0.802 across irrigation levels.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A positive response to mycorrhizal inoculation was constant across irrigation levels (0.802 for grain and 1.170 Mg ha −1 for biomass).”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation raised biomass yield by a constant 1.170 Mg ha −1 across irrigation levels.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A positive response to mycorrhizal inoculation was constant across irrigation levels (0.802 for grain and 1.170 Mg ha −1 for biomass).”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The proportional response of maize to mycorrhizal inoculation increased with drought stress.
- Treatment
- inoculation with G. etunicatume0
- Interactor
- G. etunicatume0symbiont
- Outcome
- proportional response of maizee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the proportional response of maize to inoculation with G. etunicatum increased with increasing drought stress.”
The same questions in other papers
mycorrhiza · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
103 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- no effect
109 papers more in this group
See all 113 papers →drought · disease · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →inoculation · disease · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
92 papers in the same direction as this paper · 66 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
156 papers more in this group
See all 160 papers →mycorrhiza · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
168 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
184 papers more in this group
See all 188 papers →inoculation · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
287 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
302 papers more in this group
See all 306 papers →inoculation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
478 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
534 papers more in this group
See all 538 papers →inoculation · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
634 papers in the same direction as this paper · 61 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
695 papers more in this group
See all 699 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.