Abstract
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and dark septate endophytes (DSE) are generally colonized in plant roots in metal-polluted environment. A pot experiment including four treatments (AMF inoculation of Funneliformis mosseae, DSE inoculation of Exophiala pisciphila, co-inoculation of AMF + DSE, and non-inoculation) under a high cadmium (Cd) stress (50 mg/kg) was conducted to discuss the ecological functions and interactions of AMF and DSE. The biomass, photosynthetic physiology, root morphology and traits, Cd content of maize were investigated. According to the two-way analysis of variance, AMF and DSE had no synergetic interactions on the maize performance under the high Cd stress. Both AMF inoculation and AMF + DSE co-inoculation, but not DSE inoculation, significantly increased the chlorophyll contents in maize leaves, resulting in stronger photosynthetic physiology, higher biomass, and increased length, surface area, volume, branches, tips number, and mass density (RTD) of maize roots, but decreased specific root length (SRL), specific root area (SRA), specific root branches (SRB), and specific root tips (SRT). However, there was a strong interaction between AMF and DSE on the Cd content in the maize shoots and roots. Single or co-inoculation of AMF and DSE significantly decreased the Cd content in shoots and Cd transfer coefficient of maize. Correlation analysis indicated that the Cd content in shoots was significantly positively correlated with SRL, SRA, SRB and SRT but negatively correlated with RTD. Thus AMF and DSE altered the root traits that contributed to restricting Cd migration from roots to shoots of maize.
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 18
Claim · model-written summary
AMF and DSE showed no synergistic interaction on maize performance under high Cd stress.
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AMF and DSE had no synergetic interactions on the maize performance under the high Cd stress”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF inoculation increased maize leaf chlorophyll content.
- Treatment
- AMF inoculatione0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contents in maize leavese0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both AMF inoculation and AMF + DSE co-inoculation, but not DSE inoculation, significantly increased the chlorophyll contents in maize leaves, resulting in stronger photosynthetic physiology, higher biomass, and increased length, surface area, volume, branches, tips number, and mass density (RTD) of maize roots, but decreased specific root length (SRL), specific root area (SRA), specific root branches (SRB), and specific root tips (SRT).”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF + DSE co-inoculation increased maize leaf chlorophyll content.
- Treatment
- AMF + DSE co-inoculatione0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Second interactor
- DSEe0symbiont
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contents in maize leavese0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both AMF inoculation and AMF + DSE co-inoculation, but not DSE inoculation, significantly increased the chlorophyll contents in maize leaves, resulting in stronger photosynthetic physiology, higher biomass, and increased length, surface area, volume, branches, tips number, and mass density (RTD) of maize roots, but decreased specific root length (SRL), specific root area (SRA), specific root branches (SRB), and specific root tips (SRT).”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF inoculation increased maize biomass.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both AMF inoculation and AMF + DSE co-inoculation, but not DSE inoculation, significantly increased the chlorophyll contents in maize leaves, resulting in stronger photosynthetic physiology, higher biomass, and increased length, surface area, volume, branches, tips number, and mass density (RTD) of maize roots, but decreased specific root length (SRL), specific root area (SRA), specific root branches (SRB), and specific root tips (SRT).”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF + DSE co-inoculation increased maize biomass.
- Treatment
- AMF + DSE co-inoculatione0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Second interactor
- DSEe0symbiont
- Outcome
- higher biomasse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both AMF inoculation and AMF + DSE co-inoculation, but not DSE inoculation, significantly increased the chlorophyll contents in maize leaves, resulting in stronger photosynthetic physiology, higher biomass, and increased length, surface area, volume, branches, tips number, and mass density (RTD) of maize roots, but decreased specific root length (SRL), specific root area (SRA), specific root branches (SRB), and specific root tips (SRT).”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF inoculation increased maize root length, surface area and volume.
- Treatment
- AMF inoculatione0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- length, surface area, volumee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both AMF inoculation and AMF + DSE co-inoculation, but not DSE inoculation, significantly increased the chlorophyll contents in maize leaves, resulting in stronger photosynthetic physiology, higher biomass, and increased length, surface area, volume, branches, tips number, and mass density (RTD) of maize roots, but decreased specific root length (SRL), specific root area (SRA), specific root branches (SRB), and specific root tips (SRT).”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF + DSE co-inoculation increased maize root length, surface area and volume.
- Treatment
- AMF + DSE co-inoculatione0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Second interactor
- DSEe0symbiont
- Outcome
- length, surface area, volumee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both AMF inoculation and AMF + DSE co-inoculation, but not DSE inoculation, significantly increased the chlorophyll contents in maize leaves, resulting in stronger photosynthetic physiology, higher biomass, and increased length, surface area, volume, branches, tips number, and mass density (RTD) of maize roots, but decreased specific root length (SRL), specific root area (SRA), specific root branches (SRB), and specific root tips (SRT).”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF inoculation increased maize root branch number, tip number and mass density.
- Treatment
- AMF inoculatione0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- branches, tips number, and mass density (RTD)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both AMF inoculation and AMF + DSE co-inoculation, but not DSE inoculation, significantly increased the chlorophyll contents in maize leaves, resulting in stronger photosynthetic physiology, higher biomass, and increased length, surface area, volume, branches, tips number, and mass density (RTD) of maize roots, but decreased specific root length (SRL), specific root area (SRA), specific root branches (SRB), and specific root tips (SRT).”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF + DSE co-inoculation increased maize root branch number, tip number and mass density.
- Treatment
- AMF + DSE co-inoculatione0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Second interactor
- DSEe0symbiont
- Outcome
- branches, tips number, and mass density (RTD)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both AMF inoculation and AMF + DSE co-inoculation, but not DSE inoculation, significantly increased the chlorophyll contents in maize leaves, resulting in stronger photosynthetic physiology, higher biomass, and increased length, surface area, volume, branches, tips number, and mass density (RTD) of maize roots, but decreased specific root length (SRL), specific root area (SRA), specific root branches (SRB), and specific root tips (SRT).”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF inoculation decreased specific root length and area.
- Treatment
- AMF inoculatione0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- specific root length (SRL), specific root area (SRA)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both AMF inoculation and AMF + DSE co-inoculation, but not DSE inoculation, significantly increased the chlorophyll contents in maize leaves, resulting in stronger photosynthetic physiology, higher biomass, and increased length, surface area, volume, branches, tips number, and mass density (RTD) of maize roots, but decreased specific root length (SRL), specific root area (SRA), specific root branches (SRB), and specific root tips (SRT).”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF + DSE co-inoculation decreased specific root length and area.
- Treatment
- AMF + DSE co-inoculatione0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Second interactor
- DSEe0symbiont
- Outcome
- specific root length (SRL), specific root area (SRA)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both AMF inoculation and AMF + DSE co-inoculation, but not DSE inoculation, significantly increased the chlorophyll contents in maize leaves, resulting in stronger photosynthetic physiology, higher biomass, and increased length, surface area, volume, branches, tips number, and mass density (RTD) of maize roots, but decreased specific root length (SRL), specific root area (SRA), specific root branches (SRB), and specific root tips (SRT).”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF inoculation decreased specific root branches and tips.
- Treatment
- AMF inoculatione0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- specific root branches (SRB), and specific root tips (SRT)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both AMF inoculation and AMF + DSE co-inoculation, but not DSE inoculation, significantly increased the chlorophyll contents in maize leaves, resulting in stronger photosynthetic physiology, higher biomass, and increased length, surface area, volume, branches, tips number, and mass density (RTD) of maize roots, but decreased specific root length (SRL), specific root area (SRA), specific root branches (SRB), and specific root tips (SRT).”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF + DSE co-inoculation decreased specific root branches and tips.
- Treatment
- AMF + DSE co-inoculatione0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Second interactor
- DSEe0symbiont
- Outcome
- specific root branches (SRB), and specific root tips (SRT)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both AMF inoculation and AMF + DSE co-inoculation, but not DSE inoculation, significantly increased the chlorophyll contents in maize leaves, resulting in stronger photosynthetic physiology, higher biomass, and increased length, surface area, volume, branches, tips number, and mass density (RTD) of maize roots, but decreased specific root length (SRL), specific root area (SRA), specific root branches (SRB), and specific root tips (SRT).”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF and DSE interacted strongly in their effect on Cd content in maize shoots and roots.
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Second interactor
- DSEe0symbiont
- Outcome
- Cd content in the maize shoots and rootse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was a strong interaction between AMF and DSE on the Cd content in the maize shoots and roots”
Claim · model-written summary
Single or combined AMF and DSE inoculation decreased maize Cd content in shoots.
- Treatment
- Single or co-inoculation of AMF and DSEe0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Second interactor
- DSEe0symbiont
- Outcome
- Cd content in shootse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Single or co-inoculation of AMF and DSE significantly decreased the Cd content in shoots and Cd transfer coefficient of maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
Single or combined AMF and DSE inoculation decreased maize Cd transfer coefficient of maize.
- Treatment
- Single or co-inoculation of AMF and DSEe0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Second interactor
- DSEe0symbiont
- Outcome
- Cd transfer coefficient of maizee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Single or co-inoculation of AMF and DSE significantly decreased the Cd content in shoots and Cd transfer coefficient of maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
Shoot Cd content was positively correlated with SRL, SRA, SRB and SRT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cd content in shoots was significantly positively correlated with SRL, SRA, SRB and SRT but negatively correlated with RTD.”
t0“maize performance and root traits”
Claim · model-written summary
Shoot Cd content was negatively correlated with RTD.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cd content in shoots was significantly positively correlated with SRL, SRA, SRB and SRT but negatively correlated with RTD.”
t0“maize performance and root traits”
The same questions in other papers
mycorrhiza · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →inoculation · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
84 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
91 papers more in this group
See all 95 papers →light · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →light · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →light · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
53 papers more in this group
See all 57 papers →mycorrhiza · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
118 papers more in this group
See all 122 papers →mycorrhiza · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
168 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
184 papers more in this group
See all 188 papers →inoculation · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
287 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
302 papers more in this group
See all 306 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.