Paper · 1995 · Tree Physiology

Arbuscular mycorrhizal induced changes to plant growth and root system morphology in Prunus cerasifera

G. Berta; A. Trotta; A. Fusconi; et al.

20
claims
47
verbatim quotes
237
citations
5
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

We compared root system morphogenesis of micropropogated transplants of Prunus cerasifera L. inoculated with either of the arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi Glomus mosseae or Glomus intraradices or with the ericoid mycorrhizal species Hymenoscyphus ericae. All plants were grown in sand culture, irrigated with a nutrient solution that included a soluble source of phosphorus, for 75 days after transplanting. Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization increased both the survival and growth (by over 100%) of transplants compared with either uninoculated controls or transplants inoculated with H. ericae. Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization increased root, stem and leaf weights, leaf area, root length and specific leaf area, and it decreased root length/leaf area ratio, root/shoot weight ratio and specific root length. Both uptake of phosphorus and its concentration in leaves were increased by AM infection, although the time course of the relationships between intensity of AM infection and P nutrition were complex and suggested a role for factors other than nutrition. The time course for the development of infection varied. It was most rapid with G. mosseae, but it was ultimately higher with G. intraradices. None of the treatments significantly affected the lengths of adventitious roots or the first-, second- or third-order laterals that developed from them. Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization increased the intensity of branching in all root orders with the effect being most obvious on first-order lateral roots where the number of branches increased from under 100 to over 300 brances m(-1). As a result, although first-order laterals made up 55% of the root systems of control plants, the comparable value was 36% in AM-infected plants. In contrast, second-order laterals represented 25% of control root systems, but 50% of AM-colonized root systems. Glomus intraradices but not G. mosseae increased root diameter. Anatomical studies revealed no changes in the overall form of the root tip, although there were changes in the diameter of the root cap, cell numbers and cell size. Hymenoscyphus ericae increased the duration of the metaphase index. Both AM fungal treatments increased the concentrations of soluble proteins in root extracts and modified the protein profiles by the elimination and addition of protein bands detected by PAGE analysis. We conclude that AM fungal inoculation influenced processes in the root system at different levels, but not all effects were due to improved P nutrition or increased physiological age.

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 20

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

AM colonization increased transplant survival versus uninoculated and H. ericae inoculated controls.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae1
Treatment
Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonizatione0
Interactor
Glomus mosseae or Glomus intraradicesRhizophagus intraradicesFunneliformis mosseaee2symbiont
Outcome
survivale0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
uninoculated controlse0

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Funneliformis mosseae
Funneliformis mosseae · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categorySamson90 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization increased both the survival and growth (by over 100%) of transplants compared with either uninoculated controls or transplants inoculated with H. ericae”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 410–598 · show in text ↑
e1

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
e2

“Glomus mosseae or Glomus intraradices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 157–194 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

AM colonization increased transplant growth by over 100% versus controls.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae1
Treatment
Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonizatione0
Interactor
Glomus mosseae or Glomus intraradicesRhizophagus intraradicesFunneliformis mosseaee2symbiont
Outcome
growthe0
Direction
increasede0
Value
over 100%e0
Comparator
uninoculated controlse0

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Funneliformis mosseae
Funneliformis mosseae · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categorySamson90 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization increased both the survival and growth (by over 100%) of transplants compared with either uninoculated controls or transplants inoculated with H. ericae”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 410–598 · show in text ↑
e1

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
e2

“Glomus mosseae or Glomus intraradices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 157–194 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

AM colonization increased root, stem and leaf weights.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae1
Treatment
Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonizatione0
Outcome
root, stem and leaf weightse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization increased root, stem and leaf weights”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 600–673 · show in text ↑
e1

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

AM colonization increased leaf area, root length and specific leaf area.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae1
Treatment
Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonizatione0
Outcome
leaf area, root length and specific leaf areae0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization increased root, stem and leaf weights, leaf area, root length and specific leaf area”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 600–720 · show in text ↑
e1

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

AM colonization decreased root length to leaf area ratio, root to shoot weight ratio and specific root length.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae2
Treatment
Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonizatione1
Outcome
root length/leaf area ratio, root/shoot weight ratio and specific root lengthe0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“it decreased root length/leaf area ratio, root/shoot weight ratio and specific root length”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 726–816 · show in text ↑
e1

“Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization increased root”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 600–650 · show in text ↑
e2

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

AM infection increased phosphorus uptake and leaf phosphorus concentration.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae1
Treatment
AM infectione0
Outcome
uptake of phosphorus and its concentration in leavese0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Both uptake of phosphorus and its concentration in leaves were increased by AM infection”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 818–906 · show in text ↑
e1

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Infection developed most rapidly with G. mosseae.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae2
Interactor
G. mosseaeFunneliformis mosseaee0symbiont
Outcome
development of infectione1
Direction
most rapide0

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Funneliformis mosseae
Funneliformis mosseae · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categorySamson90 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“It was most rapid with G. mosseae”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1129–1162 · show in text ↑
e1

“The time course for the development of infection varied”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1072–1127 · show in text ↑
e2

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Final infection was higher with G. intraradices.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae2
Interactor
G. intraradicesRhizophagus intraradicese0symbiont
Outcome
infectione1
Direction
highere0

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“it was ultimately higher with G. intraradices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1168–1213 · show in text ↑
e1

“The time course for the development of infection varied”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1072–1127 · show in text ↑
e2

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatments did not significantly affect adventitious root or first through third order lateral lengths.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae1
Treatment
treatmentse0
Outcome
lengths of adventitious roots or the first-, second- or third-order lateralse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“None of the treatments significantly affected the lengths of adventitious roots or the first-, second- or third-order laterals that developed from them”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1215–1366 · show in text ↑
e1

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

AM colonization increased branching intensity in all root orders.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae1
Treatment
Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonizatione0
Outcome
intensity of branching in all root orderse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization increased the intensity of branching in all root orders”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1368–1459 · show in text ↑
e1

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

First order lateral branch density rose from under 100 to over 300 branches per meter.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae2
Treatment
Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonizatione1
Outcome
number of branchese0
Direction
increasede0
Value
over 300 brances m(-1)e0
Qualifier
under 100e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“first-order lateral roots where the number of branches increased from under 100 to over 300 brances m(-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1498–1603 · show in text ↑
e1

“Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization increased the intensity of branching”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1368–1440 · show in text ↑
e2

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

First order laterals represented 36% of AM infected versus 55% of control root systems.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae1
Treatment
AM-infected plantse0
Outcome
first-order lateralse0
Direction
decreaseinferrede0
Value
36%e0
Qualifier
55%e0
Comparator
control plantse0

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“first-order laterals made up 55% of the root systems of control plants, the comparable value was 36% in AM-infected plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1627–1749 · show in text ↑
e1

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Second order laterals represented 50% of AM colonized versus 25% of control root systems.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae1
Treatment
AM-colonized root systemse0
Outcome
second-order lateralse0
Direction
increaseinferrede0
Value
50%e0
Qualifier
25%e0
Comparator
control root systemse0

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“second-order laterals represented 25% of control root systems, but 50% of AM-colonized root systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1764–1863 · show in text ↑
e1

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

G. intraradices increased root diameter.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae1
Treatment
Glomus intraradicese0
Interactor
Glomus intraradicesRhizophagus intraradicese0symbiont
Outcome
root diametere0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
G. mosseaee0

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Glomus intraradices but not G. mosseae increased root diameter”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1865–1927 · show in text ↑
e1

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Anatomical studies found no overall root tip form change.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae1
Outcome
overall form of the root tipe0
Direction
no changese0

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Anatomical studies revealed no changes in the overall form of the root tip”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1929–2003 · show in text ↑
e1

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Anatomical studies found changes in root cap diameter, cell number and cell size.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae1
Outcome
diameter of the root cap, cell numbers and cell sizee0
Direction
changese0

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“there were changes in the diameter of the root cap, cell numbers and cell size”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2014–2092 · show in text ↑
e1

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hymenoscyphus ericae increased duration of the metaphase index.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae1
Treatment
Hymenoscyphus ericaee0
Interactor
Hymenoscyphus ericaeHyaloscypha hepaticicolae0symbiont
Outcome
duration of the metaphase indexe0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Hyaloscypha hepaticicola
Hyaloscypha hepaticicola · InteractorNina Filippova (The Fungarium of Yugra State University) · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Hymenoscyphus ericae increased the duration of the metaphase index”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2094–2160 · show in text ↑
e1

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Both AM fungal treatments increased soluble protein concentrations in root extracts.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae1
Treatment
AM fungal treatmentse0
Outcome
concentrations of soluble proteins in root extractse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Both AM fungal treatments increased the concentrations of soluble proteins in root extracts”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2162–2253 · show in text ↑
e1

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Both AM fungal treatments modified root protein profiles by eliminating and adding PAGE bands.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae1
Treatment
AM fungal treatmentse0
Outcome
protein profilese0
Direction
modifiede0
Qualifier
elimination and addition of protein bandse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Both AM fungal treatments increased the concentrations of soluble proteins in root extracts and modified the protein profiles by the elimination and addition of protein bands detected by PAGE analysis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2162–2362 · show in text ↑
e1

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors conclude AM effects on roots were not all attributable to improved phosphorus nutrition or physiological age.

Taxon
Prunus cerasiferaPrunus cerasiferae2
Outcome
processes in the root systeme1
Qualifier
not all effects were due to improved P nutrition or increased physiological agee0

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

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“not all effects were due to improved P nutrition or increased physiological age”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2468–2547 · show in text ↑
e1

“AM fungal inoculation influenced processes in the root system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2381–2442 · show in text ↑
e2

“Prunus cerasifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 72–92 · show in text ↑

mycorrhiza · growth · Prunus cerasifera (cherry plum)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.