Abstract
Two vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) fungi, Glomus mosseae (Nicol. and Gerd.) Gerd. and Trappe or G. fasciculatum (Thaxter sensu Gerd.) Gerd. and Trappe, were tested for their functional compatibility with two Bradyrhizobium strains (Br 185 and Br 192) in Cicer arietinum. Observed effects on plant growth and nutrition by dual combinations of Bradyrhizobium and VAM fungi ranged from compatible interactions in the case of Br 185 to a pronounced functional incompatibility with stain Br 192. The association of G. fasciculatum plus Br 185 resulted in a 30% increase of growth and of nutrient content 24% (N), 42% (P), 32% (K). However, the combination of G. fasciculatum plus Br 192 reduced dry weight by (58%) and nutrient acquisition by 31% (P), 54% (K), 65% (Ca) and 44% (Mg). Nodule number also increased (53%) in the case of the compatible interaction and decreased (86%) in the incompatible associations. G. fasciculatum was more infective than G. mosseae in association with Cicer arietinum. The most nodulating Bradyrhizobium strain was Br 192. Mycorrhizal and nodular development was reduced in plants inoculated with the most invasive endophytes ( G. fasciculatum and Bradyrhizobium 192). Specific mechanisms such as the reduced level of chlorophyll content conferring functional differences in plants nodulated with the strain 192 of Bradyrhizobium could be related. In the present study the specific interaction between endophytes was tested at physiological and structural levels. Plant response depends on the particular combination of Rhizobium strain and Glomus isolate.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Co-inoculation of chickpea with G. fasciculatum and Br 185 increased growth by 30%.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinumt0 - Treatment
- G. fasciculatum plus Br 185e0
- Interactor
- G. fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse0symbiont
- Second interactor
- Br 185e0symbiont
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 30%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The association of G. fasciculatum plus Br 185 resulted in a 30% increase of growth”
t0“Cicer arietinum”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-inoculation with G. fasciculatum and Br 185 increased N content of chickpea by 24%.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinumCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- G. fasciculatum plus Br 185e0
- Interactor
- G. fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse0symbiont
- Second interactor
- Br 185e0symbiont
- Outcome
- nutrient contente0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 24%e0
- Qualifier
- Ne0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The association of G. fasciculatum plus Br 185 resulted in a 30% increase of growth and of nutrient content 24% (N), 42% (P), 32% (K)”
t0“Cicer arietinum”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-inoculation with G. fasciculatum and Br 185 increased P content of chickpea by 42%.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinumCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- G. fasciculatum plus Br 185e0
- Interactor
- G. fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse0symbiont
- Second interactor
- Br 185e0symbiont
- Outcome
- nutrient contente0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 42%e0
- Qualifier
- Pe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The association of G. fasciculatum plus Br 185 resulted in a 30% increase of growth and of nutrient content 24% (N), 42% (P), 32% (K)”
t0“Cicer arietinum”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-inoculation with G. fasciculatum and Br 185 increased K content of chickpea by 32%.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinumCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- G. fasciculatum plus Br 185e0
- Interactor
- G. fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse0symbiont
- Second interactor
- Br 185e0symbiont
- Outcome
- nutrient contente0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 32%e0
- Qualifier
- Ke0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The association of G. fasciculatum plus Br 185 resulted in a 30% increase of growth and of nutrient content 24% (N), 42% (P), 32% (K)”
t0“Cicer arietinum”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-inoculation with G. fasciculatum and Br 192 reduced chickpea dry weight by 58%.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinumCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- G. fasciculatum plus Br 192e0
- Interactor
- G. fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse0symbiont
- Second interactor
- Br 192e0symbiont
- Outcome
- dry weighte0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 58%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the combination of G. fasciculatum plus Br 192 reduced dry weight by (58%)”
t0“Cicer arietinum”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-inoculation with G. fasciculatum and Br 192 reduced P acquisition of chickpea by 31%.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinumCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- G. fasciculatum plus Br 192e0
- Interactor
- G. fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse0symbiont
- Second interactor
- Br 192e0symbiont
- Outcome
- nutrient acquisitione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 31%e0
- Qualifier
- Pe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the combination of G. fasciculatum plus Br 192 reduced dry weight by (58%) and nutrient acquisition by 31% (P), 54% (K), 65% (Ca) and 44% (Mg)”
t0“Cicer arietinum”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-inoculation with G. fasciculatum and Br 192 reduced K acquisition of chickpea by 54%.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinumCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- G. fasciculatum plus Br 192e0
- Interactor
- G. fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse0symbiont
- Second interactor
- Br 192e0symbiont
- Outcome
- nutrient acquisitione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 54%e0
- Qualifier
- Ke0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the combination of G. fasciculatum plus Br 192 reduced dry weight by (58%) and nutrient acquisition by 31% (P), 54% (K), 65% (Ca) and 44% (Mg)”
t0“Cicer arietinum”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-inoculation with G. fasciculatum and Br 192 reduced Ca acquisition of chickpea by 65%.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinumCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- G. fasciculatum plus Br 192e0
- Interactor
- G. fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse0symbiont
- Second interactor
- Br 192e0symbiont
- Outcome
- nutrient acquisitione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 65%e0
- Qualifier
- Cae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the combination of G. fasciculatum plus Br 192 reduced dry weight by (58%) and nutrient acquisition by 31% (P), 54% (K), 65% (Ca) and 44% (Mg)”
t0“Cicer arietinum”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-inoculation with G. fasciculatum and Br 192 reduced Mg acquisition of chickpea by 44%.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinumCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- G. fasciculatum plus Br 192e0
- Interactor
- G. fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse0symbiont
- Second interactor
- Br 192e0symbiont
- Outcome
- nutrient acquisitione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 44%e0
- Qualifier
- Mge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the combination of G. fasciculatum plus Br 192 reduced dry weight by (58%) and nutrient acquisition by 31% (P), 54% (K), 65% (Ca) and 44% (Mg)”
t0“Cicer arietinum”
Claim · model-written summary
Nodule number increased by 53% in the compatible interaction.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinumCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- compatible interactione0
- Outcome
- Nodule numbere0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 53%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nodule number also increased (53%) in the case of the compatible interaction and decreased (86%) in the incompatible associations”
t0“Cicer arietinum”
Claim · model-written summary
Nodule number decreased by 86% in the incompatible associations.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinumCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- incompatible associationse0
- Outcome
- Nodule numbere0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 86%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nodule number also increased (53%) in the case of the compatible interaction and decreased (86%) in the incompatible associations”
t0“Cicer arietinum”
Claim · model-written summary
G. fasciculatum was more infective than G. mosseae in association with chickpea.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinumCicer arietinume0
- Interactor
- G. fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse0symbiont
- Second interactor
- G. mosseae
Funneliformis mosseaee0symbiont - Outcome
- more infectivee0
- Comparator
- G. mosseaee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“G. fasciculatum was more infective than G. mosseae in association with Cicer arietinum”
Claim · model-written summary
Bradyrhizobium strain Br 192 was the most nodulating strain.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinumCicer arietinumt0
- Interactor
- Br 192e0symbiont
- Outcome
- most nodulating Bradyrhizobium straine0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The most nodulating Bradyrhizobium strain was Br 192”
t0“Cicer arietinum”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal and nodular development was reduced in plants inoculated with the most invasive endophytes, G. fasciculatum and Bradyrhizobium 192.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinumCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- G. fasciculatum and Bradyrhizobium 192e0
- Interactor
- G. fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse0symbiont
- Second interactor
- Bradyrhizobium 192e0symbiont
- Outcome
- Mycorrhizal and nodular developmente0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mycorrhizal and nodular development was reduced in plants inoculated with the most invasive endophytes ( G. fasciculatum and Bradyrhizobium 192)”
t0“Cicer arietinum”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced chlorophyll content could be related to the functional differences in plants nodulated with Bradyrhizobium strain 192.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinumCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- nodulated with the strain 192 of Bradyrhizobiume0
- Outcome
- functional differencese0
- Qualifier
- reduced level of chlorophyll contente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the reduced level of chlorophyll content conferring functional differences in plants nodulated with the strain 192 of Bradyrhizobium could be related”
t0“Cicer arietinum”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant response depends on the particular combination of Rhizobium strain and Glomus isolate.
- Taxon
- Cicer arietinumCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- combination of Rhizobium strain and Glomus isolatee0
- Outcome
- Plant responsee0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plant response depends on the particular combination of Rhizobium strain and Glomus isolate”
t0“Cicer arietinum”
The same questions in other papers
Rhizophagus fasciculatus · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
Rhizophagus fasciculatus · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)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.