Abstract
Effects of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) fungi and soil phosphorus (P) fertility on parasitism of soybean cultivars Bragg and Wright by soybean cyst nematode (SCN) were investigated in field micropiot and greenhouse experiments. VAM fungi increased height of both cultivars and yield of Wright in microplot studies in 1986 and 1987. Conversely, yield of mycorrhizal and nonmycorrhizal plants of both cultivars was suppressed by SCN. Soil population densities of SCN were unaffected by VAM fungi in 1986 but were greater in microplots infested with VAM fungi than in control microplots in 1987. Growth of Wright soybean was stimulated by VAM fungi and suppressed by SCN in greenhouse experiments. The effect of VAM fungi on SCN varied with time. Numbers of SCN in roots and soil were decreased by VAM fungi by as much as 73% at the highest SCN inoculum level through 49 days after planting. Later, however, SCN numbers were usually comparable on mycorrhizal and nonmycorrhizal plants. Soil P fertility generally had no effect on SCN. Results of a split-root experiment indicated that VAM fungal suppression of SCN was not systemic.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
VAM fungi increased height of both soybean cultivars in microplots.
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Soybean”
e1“VAM fungi increased height of both cultivars and yield of Wright in microplot studies in 1986 and 1987”
Claim · model-written summary
VAM fungi increased Wright yield in microplots in 1986 and 1987.
- Taxon
- Soybean
Glycine maxt0 - Material
- Wrighte2
- Treatment
- VAM fungie2
- Outcome
- yielde2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Setting
- microplote2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Soybean”
e2“VAM fungi increased height of both cultivars and yield of Wright in microplot studies in 1986 and 1987”
Claim · model-written summary
SCN suppressed yields of mycorrhizal and nonmycorrhizal plants of both cultivars.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Soybean”
e3“yield of mycorrhizal and nonmycorrhizal plants of both cultivars was suppressed by SCN”
Claim · model-written summary
VAM fungi did not affect soil SCN population density in 1986.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- VAM fungie4
- Interactor
- SCNe4pathogen
- Second interactor
- VAM fungie4symbiont
- Outcome
- Soil population densities of SCNe4
- Direction
- unaffectede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Soybean”
e4“Soil population densities of SCN were unaffected by VAM fungi in 1986”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil SCN populations were greater in VAM-infested microplots than controls in 1987.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- VAM fungie5
- Interactor
- VAM fungie5symbiont
- Outcome
- microplots infested with VAM fungie5
- Direction
- greatere5
- Comparator
- control microplotse5
- Setting
- microplotse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Soybean”
e5“were greater in microplots infested with VAM fungi than in control microplots in 1987”
Claim · model-written summary
VAM fungi stimulated growth of Wright soybean in the greenhouse.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Material
- Wrighte6
- Treatment
- VAM fungie6
- Interactor
- VAM fungie6symbiont
- Outcome
- Growthe6
- Direction
- stimulatede6
- Setting
- greenhousee6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Soybean”
e6“Growth of Wright soybean was stimulated by VAM fungi and suppressed by SCN in greenhouse experiments”
Claim · model-written summary
SCN suppressed growth of Wright soybean in the greenhouse.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Material
- Wrighte7
- Treatment
- SCNe7
- Interactor
- SCNe7pathogen
- Outcome
- Growthe7
- Direction
- suppressede7
- Setting
- greenhousee7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Soybean”
e7“Growth of Wright soybean was stimulated by VAM fungi and suppressed by SCN in greenhouse experiments”
Claim · model-written summary
VAM fungi reduced SCN numbers in roots and soil by up to 73% through day 49 at the highest inoculum level.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- VAM fungie1
- Interactor
- SCNe1pathogen
- Second interactor
- VAM fungie1symbiont
- Outcome
- Numbers of SCN in roots and soile1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Value
- 73%e1
- Qualifier
- at the highest SCN inoculum level through 49 days after plantinge1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Soybean”
e1“Numbers of SCN in roots and soil were decreased by VAM fungi by as much as 73% at the highest SCN inoculum level through 49 days after planting”
Claim · model-written summary
Later SCN numbers were usually comparable on mycorrhizal and nonmycorrhizal plants.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- mycorrhizale1
- Interactor
- SCNe1pathogen
- Outcome
- SCN numberse1
- Direction
- comparablee1
- Comparator
- nonmycorrhizal plantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Soybean”
e1“Later, however, SCN numbers were usually comparable on mycorrhizal and nonmycorrhizal plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil P fertility generally did not affect SCN.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- Soil P fertilitye1
- Interactor
- SCNe1pathogen
- Outcome
- SCNe1
- Direction
- no effecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Soybean”
e1“Soil P fertility generally had no effect on SCN”
Claim · model-written summary
Split-root results indicated VAM suppression of SCN was not systemic.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Interactor
- SCNe1pathogen
- Outcome
- VAM fungal suppression of SCN was not systemice1
- Qualifier
- not systemice1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Soybean”
e1“Results of a split-root experiment indicated that VAM fungal suppression of SCN was not systemic”
The same questions in other papers
Heterodera glycines · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
8 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →Heterodera glycines · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →mycorrhiza · pest · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →mycorrhiza · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
73 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
75 papers more in this group
See all 79 papers →mycorrhiza · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
78 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
83 papers more in this group
See all 87 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.