Abstract
Two experiments with Malus domestica sp. were planted in 1997 at the Laval Univ. experimental farm located south of the St. Lawrence river near Quebec City. These experiments examined the association of the mycorrhizal fungus Glomus intraradices with Malus domestica sp. The first experiment compared the vegetative growth of `McIntosh' apple trees on M.106 rootstock in presence or absence of a commercial inoculum of G. intraradices (Premier Tech, Riviere-du-Loup, Quebec) under three levels of phosphorus fertilization (P) to the soil (0%, 50%, and 100% of the usual recommandation for this crop). After two seasons, all the treatments had better growth than the control (0% P without G. intraradices ). The best treatment was achieved with 100% of the P associated with mycorrhizal inoculation. The second experiment compared the vegetative growth of three apple rootstocks Bud.9, M.26, and M.106, inoculated with G. intraradices under the same three P levels as the preceding experiment. Uninoculated rootstocks receiving the usual phosphorus fertilization served as control. Two roostocks, M.26 and M.106, increased growth with G. intraradices , while the third one, Bud.9, did not respond to the presence of mycorrhizal fungus.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Every treatment improved McIntosh apple-tree growth relative to 0% P without inoculation after two seasons.
- Taxon
- apple trees
Malus domesticae1 - Material
- `McIntosh'e1
- Treatment
- all the treatmentse0
- Interactor
- G. intraradicesRhizophagus intraradicese0symbiont
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Qualifier
- After two seasonse0
- Comparator
- 0% P without G. intraradicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“After two seasons, all the treatments had better growth than the control (0% P without G. intraradices ).”
e1“`McIntosh' apple trees on M.106 rootstock”
Claim · model-written summary
The best McIntosh apple-tree growth occurred with full phosphorus and mycorrhizal inoculation.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticae1
- Material
- `McIntosh'e1
- Treatment
- 100% of the P associated with mycorrhizal inoculatione0
- Interactor
- Glomus intraradicesRhizophagus intraradicese2symbiont
- Outcome
- best treatmente0
- Direction
- beste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The best treatment was achieved with 100% of the P associated with mycorrhizal inoculation.”
e1“`McIntosh' apple trees on M.106 rootstock”
e2“mycorrhizal fungus Glomus intraradices”
Claim · model-written summary
M.26 rootstock growth increased with G. intraradices.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae1
- Material
- M.26e0
- Treatment
- G. intraradicese0
- Interactor
- G. intraradicesRhizophagus intraradicese0symbiont
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two roostocks, M.26 and M.106, increased growth with G. intraradices , while the third one, Bud.9, did not respond to the presence of mycorrhizal fungus.”
e1“Three apple rootstocks Bud.9, M.26, and M.106”
Claim · model-written summary
M.106 rootstock growth increased with G. intraradices.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae1
- Material
- M.106e0
- Treatment
- G. intraradicese0
- Interactor
- G. intraradicesRhizophagus intraradicese0symbiont
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two roostocks, M.26 and M.106, increased growth with G. intraradices , while the third one, Bud.9, did not respond to the presence of mycorrhizal fungus.”
e1“three apple rootstocks Bud.9, M.26, and M.106”
Claim · model-written summary
Bud.9 rootstock growth did not respond to the mycorrhizal fungus.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae1
- Material
- Bud.9e0
- Treatment
- presence of mycorrhizal funguse0
- Interactor
- Glomus intraradicesRhizophagus intraradicese2symbiont
- Outcome
- did not responde0
- Direction
- did not responde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Bud.9, did not respond to the presence of mycorrhizal fungus.”
e1“three apple rootstocks Bud.9, M.26, and M.106”
e2“mycorrhizal fungus Glomus intraradices”
The same questions in other papers
Rhizophagus intraradices · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
inoculation · Rhizophagus intraradices · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
mycorrhiza · Rhizophagus intraradices · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.