Abstract
The effects of eight summer cover crop treatments combined with two arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungal inoculants on strawberry growth and yields were examined in a 2-year field experiment. Cover crop treatments included 1) sudangrass [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench cv. Piper]; 2) pearl millet [ Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.Br. cv. 102 M Hybrid]; 3) soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merrill cv. Laredo]; 4) velvetbean [ Mucuna deeringiana (Bort) Merr. cv. Georgia Bush]; 5) sudangrass/velvetbean combination; 6) pearl millet/soybean combination; 7) a non-mycorrhizal host consisting of rape ( Brassica napus L. var. napus cv. Dwarf Essex) and buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) in Year 1 and Year 2, respectively; and 8) no cover crop control. Strawberry tips were inoculated with either a native mixture of several AM fungal species or a single species sold commercially, Glomus intraradices . Cover crop treatments were assessed for their aboveground biomass and nutrient uptake as well as their impacts on weed abundance and diversity, soil nutrients, and parasitic nematode populations. Cover crop and AM treatments were assessed for their impact on strawberry growth, yields, AM root colonization, and nutrient uptake. Grass-based cover crop treatments, particularly pearl millet, produced the most aboveground biomass. In both years, all cover crop treatments reduced summer weed biomass compared with the control. Neither cover crop nor AM treatments had an effect on overall strawberry plant growth or yields in either year, although some differences existed at specific growth periods. The results suggest that cover crops are a viable strategy for reducing summertime weeds and that background, native populations of AM fungi in the soil may be just as effective as a commercially available species. It is likely that no overall yield benefit was found among treatments for two reasons: 1) nutrients, especially nitrogen, were not limiting; and 2) the cover crop growth window may have been too short for a significant impact on strawberries over two seasons.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Pearl millet produced the most aboveground biomass among the summer cover crops.
- Taxon
- Strawberry
_single2.jpg?width=60)
Fragaria ×ananassat0 - Treatment
- pearl millete2
- Outcome
- aboveground biomasse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_single2.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0“on Strawberry Production”
e2“Grass-based cover crop treatments, particularly pearl millet, produced the most aboveground biomass”
Claim · model-written summary
All cover crop treatments reduced summer weed biomass compared with the control in both years.
- Taxon
- StrawberryFragaria ×ananassat0
- Treatment
- cover crop treatmentse3
- Interactor
- summer weede3weed
- Outcome
- summer weed biomasse3
- Direction
- reducede3
- Comparator
- controle3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Strawberry Production”
e3“In both years, all cover crop treatments reduced summer weed biomass compared with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither cover crop nor AM treatments had an effect on overall strawberry plant growth or yields.
- Taxon
- StrawberryFragaria ×ananassat0
- Treatment
- AM treatmentse4
- Outcome
- overall strawberry plant growth or yieldse4
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Strawberry Production”
e4“Neither cover crop nor AM treatments had an effect on overall strawberry plant growth or yields in either year”
Claim · model-written summary
Some differences in strawberry growth existed at specific growth periods.
- Taxon
- StrawberryFragaria ×ananassat0
- Outcome
- differences existed at specific growth periodse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Strawberry Production”
e4“although some differences existed at specific growth periods”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops are a viable strategy for reducing summertime weeds.
- Taxon
- StrawberryFragaria ×ananassat0
- Treatment
- cover cropse5
- Outcome
- reducing summertime weedse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Strawberry Production”
e5“cover crops are a viable strategy for reducing summertime weeds”
Claim · model-written summary
Native AM fungal populations may be as effective as a commercially available species.
- Taxon
- StrawberryFragaria ×ananassat0
- Treatment
- native mixture of several AM fungal speciese7
- Interactor
- AM fungiGlomeromycotae6symbiont
- Outcome
- effectivee6
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede6
- Comparator
- a single species sold commerciallye7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Strawberry Production”
e6“background, native populations of AM fungi in the soil may be just as effective as a commercially available species”
e7“Strawberry tips were inoculated with either a native mixture of several AM fungal species or a single species sold commercially”
The same questions in other papers
mycorrhiza · yield · Fragaria x ananassa (strawberry)Results differ
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 papers →mycorrhiza · Glomeromycota · Fragaria x ananassa (strawberry)Positive and negative results
3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
cover crop · weed · Fragaria x ananassa (strawberry)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.