Paper · 2018 · Cogent Food & Agriculture

Matching source and sink: An environmentally tailored fungal endophyte consortium increases yield in three field-grown barley cultivars

Brian R. Murphy; Fiona M. Doohan; Trevor R. Hodkinson

5
claims
20
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Environmental stresses are limiting factors in optimal agricultural crop yield, and these stresses, especially drought, are likely to become more acute due to future climate change. Crop wild relatives contain environmentally selected endophytes that can help to increase stress resistance. Our previous work with barley cultivars has shown a positive correlation between endophyte-induced yield increase and increasingly dry conditions. For this study, we hypothesised that a consortium of fungal endophytes recovered from a crop wild relative of barley growing in drought-stressed sites would enhance barley yield in similarly low moisture agricultural sites. We grew three barley cultivars on two environmentally distinct sites under three nitrogen (N) input regimes. We found that the endophyte inoculant induced an increase in grain dry weight at both sites, which experienced abnormally low local rainfall in the early growing season. The yield increase was 1.2 t/ha for standard N input, 1.1 t/ha for half N input and 0.6 t/ha with no N input. Additionally, on both sites, endophyte treatment with half N input recovered yield to that associated with untreated crops with standard N input for all three cultivars. Furthermore, the endophytes still retained their efficacy with regular foliar fungicidal crop treatments. These results show that endophytes recovered from sites with low and similar water status to the targeted barley growing sites can produce large and significant increases in yield regardless of nitrogen input, and hold promise for application in drought-stressed sites with limited access to expensive nitrogen fertilisers.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Endophytes increased barley yield by 1.2 t/ha at standard nitrogen input.

Treatment
endophyte inoculantt1
Interactor
fungal endophyte consortiume1symbiont
Outcome
grain dry weighte2
Direction
increasee0
Value
1.2 t/hae0
Qualifier
standard N inpute0

Not reportedComparator

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

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The yield increase was 1.2 t/ha for standard N input, 1.1 t/ha for half N input and 0.6 t/ha with no N input”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 941–1049 · show in text ↑
e1

“fungal endophyte consortium”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 54–81 · show in text ↑
e2

“increase in grain dry weight”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 820–848 · show in text ↑
t0

“barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–125 · show in text ↑
t1

“endophyte inoculant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 789–808 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Endophytes increased barley yield by 1.1 t/ha at half nitrogen input.

Treatment
endophyte inoculantt1
Interactor
fungal endophyte consortiume1symbiont
Outcome
grain dry weighte2
Direction
increasee0
Value
1.1 t/hae0
Qualifier
half N inpute0

Not reportedComparator

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

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The yield increase was 1.2 t/ha for standard N input, 1.1 t/ha for half N input and 0.6 t/ha with no N input”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 941–1049 · show in text ↑
e1

“fungal endophyte consortium”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 54–81 · show in text ↑
e2

“increase in grain dry weight”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 820–848 · show in text ↑
t0

“barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–125 · show in text ↑
t1

“endophyte inoculant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 789–808 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Endophytes increased barley yield by 0.6 t/ha without nitrogen input.

Treatment
endophyte inoculantt1
Interactor
fungal endophyte consortiume1symbiont
Outcome
grain dry weighte2
Direction
increasee0
Value
0.6 t/hae0
Qualifier
no N inpute0

Not reportedComparator

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

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The yield increase was 1.2 t/ha for standard N input, 1.1 t/ha for half N input and 0.6 t/ha with no N input”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 941–1049 · show in text ↑
e1

“fungal endophyte consortium”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 54–81 · show in text ↑
e2

“increase in grain dry weight”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 820–848 · show in text ↑
t0

“barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–125 · show in text ↑
t1

“endophyte inoculant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 789–808 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Endophytes with half nitrogen restored yield to the untreated standard nitrogen level.

Treatment
endophyte treatment with half N inpute0
Interactor
fungal endophyte consortiume1symbiont
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
recoverede0
Comparator
untreated crops with standard N inpute0

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

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“endophyte treatment with half N input recovered yield to that associated with untreated crops with standard N input for all three cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1080–1219 · show in text ↑
e1

“fungal endophyte consortium”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 54–81 · show in text ↑
t0

“barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–125 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Endophytes remained effective with foliar fungicide treatment.

Treatment
regular foliar fungicidal crop treatmentse0
Interactor
endophytese0symbiont
Outcome
retained their efficacye0

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

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the endophytes still retained their efficacy with regular foliar fungicidal crop treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1234–1325 · show in text ↑
t0

“barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–125 · show in text ↑

inoculation · growth · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Results differ

88 papers: 66 positive, 22 negative or no effect

65 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

84 papers more in this group

See all 88 papers →

inoculation · yield · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

100 papers: 83 positive, 17 negative or no effect

82 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

96 papers more in this group

See all 100 papers →

nitrogen · yield · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

299 papers: 252 positive, 47 negative or no effect

251 papers in the same direction as this paper · 44 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

295 papers more in this group

See all 299 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.