Paper · 1998

Seasonal mycorrhizal colonization of winter wheat and its effect on wheat growth under dryland field conditions

Q Springer-Verlag

5
claims
9
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted to deter- mine the seasonal patterns of arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) in a dryland winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) system and to determine wheat growth and P uptake responses to inoculation with mycorrhizal fungus. Broadcast-incorporated treatments included (1) no ino- culation with mycorrhizal fungus, with and without P fertilizer, and (2) mycorrhizal fungal inoculation at a rate of 5000 spores of Glomus intraradices (Schenck and Smith), per 30 cm in each row, with and without fertilizer P. Winter wheat was seeded within a day after treatments were imposed, and roots were sampled at five growth stages to quantify AM. Shoot samples were also taken for determination of dry matter, grain yield and yield components, and N and P uptake. No AM infection was evident during the fall months following seeding, which was characterized by low soil tempera- ture, while during the spring, the AM increased grad- ually. Increases in wheat grain yields by enhanced AM were of similar magnitude to the response obtained from P fertilization. However, responses differed at in- termediate growth stages. At the tillering stage, P up- take was mainly increased by P fertilization but not by fungal inoculation. At harvest, enhanced AM increased P uptake regardless of whether or not fertilizer P was added. The AM symbiosis increased with rising soil temperatures in the spring, in time to enhance late-sea- son P accumulation and grain production.

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

AM infection was absent in fall and increased during spring.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Outcome
AM infectione0
Direction
increased grad- uallye0
Qualifier
during the springe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No AM infection was evident during the fall months following seeding, which was characterized by low soil tempera- ture, while during the spring, the AM increased grad- ually.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 777–952 · show in text ↑
t0

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–49 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Enhanced AM increased wheat grain yield with a response similar in magnitude to P fertilizer.

Treatment
enhanced AMe0
Outcome
wheat grain yieldse0
Direction
Increasese0
Comparator
P fertilizatione0

Not reportedInteractor

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Increases in wheat grain yields by enhanced AM were of similar magnitude to the response obtained from P fertilization.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 953–1072 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At tillering, P fertilizer increased P uptake.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Organ / stage
tillering stagee0
Treatment
P fertilizatione0
Outcome
P up- takee0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At the tillering stage, P up- take was mainly increased by P fertilization but not by fungal inoculation.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1134–1239 · show in text ↑
t0

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–49 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At tillering, fungal inoculation did not increase P uptake.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Organ / stage
tillering stagee0
Treatment
fungal inoculatione0
Outcome
P up- takee0
Direction
note0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At the tillering stage, P up- take was mainly increased by P fertilization but not by fungal inoculation.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1134–1239 · show in text ↑
t0

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–49 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At harvest, enhanced AM increased P uptake regardless of P fertilizer.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
enhanced AMe0
Outcome
P uptakee0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
regardless of whether or not fertilizer P was addede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At harvest, enhanced AM increased P uptake regardless of whether or not fertilizer P was added.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1240–1335 · show in text ↑
t0

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–49 · show in text ↑

mycorrhiza · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

80 papers: 71 positive, 9 negative or no effect

70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

76 papers more in this group

See all 80 papers →

mycorrhiza · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

103 papers: 95 positive, 8 negative or no effect

94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

99 papers more in this group

See all 103 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.