Abstract
The current study aimed to compare between inoculation of wheat plant with a single and combinations of several species of Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), and promoting its growth under water stress conditions. In a greenhouse experiment, the effect of three AMF species on wheat plant growth was studied using single-inoculations with Glomus monosporum, G. mosseae and Gigaspora gigantean, and mixtures of various AMF species. Moreover, inoculation of wheat plant with pair of AM fungi composed mainly of; SN (G. monosporum and Gigaspora gigantean) and AA (G, monosporum and Glomus mosseae) were investigated. Current findings indicate that inoculation with AMF belonging to different families was more effective in improving plant growth than AMF from the same genus and with mono-inoculation. Results showed that plant height inoculated with SN and AA increased by 27.30% and 24.95; respectively, while inoculation with Gigaspora gigantean (GG), G. mosseae (GS) and G. monosporum (GM) increased by 16.01%, 14.6% and 6.83%, respectively. Number of spikes/plant, spike length, number of spikelet/spike, 1000-grain weight and grain yield/plant of wheat plants inoculated with AMF increased significantly, compared with the non-inoculated control plants under water stress. In addition, current results demonstrated that inoculation with SN had relatively higher impact on promoting the growth of wheat plants followed by AA and GG, suggesting that inoculation with AMF consisting of different species may have a better effect than single inoculations. Furthermore, it is observed also that SN; which are combination from different genera have better effect on wheat plant growth, compared to that of AA from the same genus but of different species.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with SN increased wheat plant height by 27.30%.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- inoculated with SNe1
- Interactor
- SNe1symbiont
- Outcome
- plant heighte1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 27.30%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Results showed that plant height inoculated with SN and AA increased by 27.30% and 24.95; respectively, while inoculation with Gigaspora gigantean (GG), G. mosseae (GS) and G. monosporum (GM) increased by 16.01%, 14.6% and 6.83%”
t0“drought-stressed wheat plant (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with AA increased wheat plant height by 24.95.
AaNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Results showed that plant height inoculated with SN and AA increased by 27.30% and 24.95; respectively, while inoculation with Gigaspora gigantean (GG), G. mosseae (GS) and G. monosporum (GM) increased by 16.01%, 14.6% and 6.83%”
t0“drought-stressed wheat plant (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with Gigaspora gigantean (GG) increased wheat plant height by 16.01%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Gigaspora gigantean (GG)e1
- Interactor
- Gigaspora giganteane1symbiont
- Outcome
- plant heighte1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 16.01%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Results showed that plant height inoculated with SN and AA increased by 27.30% and 24.95; respectively, while inoculation with Gigaspora gigantean (GG), G. mosseae (GS) and G. monosporum (GM) increased by 16.01%, 14.6% and 6.83%”
t0“drought-stressed wheat plant (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with G. mosseae (GS) increased wheat plant height by 14.6%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- G. mosseae (GS)e1
- Interactor
- G. mosseae
Funneliformis mosseaee1symbiont - Outcome
- plant heighte1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 14.6%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Results showed that plant height inoculated with SN and AA increased by 27.30% and 24.95; respectively, while inoculation with Gigaspora gigantean (GG), G. mosseae (GS) and G. monosporum (GM) increased by 16.01%, 14.6% and 6.83%”
t0“drought-stressed wheat plant (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with G. monosporum (GM) increased wheat plant height by 6.83%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- G. monosporum (GM)e1
- Interactor
- G. monosporumFunneliformis monosporuse1symbiont
- Outcome
- plant heighte1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 6.83%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Results showed that plant height inoculated with SN and AA increased by 27.30% and 24.95; respectively, while inoculation with Gigaspora gigantean (GG), G. mosseae (GS) and G. monosporum (GM) increased by 16.01%, 14.6% and 6.83%”
t0“drought-stressed wheat plant (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Spikes per plant, spike length and spikelets per spike of wheat inoculated with AMF increased significantly under water stress compared with non-inoculated controls.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- inoculated with AMFe2
- Interactor
- AMFe2symbiont
- Outcome
- Number of spikes/plant, spike length, number of spikelet/spikee2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Qualifier
- under water stresse2
- Comparator
- non-inoculated control plantse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Number of spikes/plant, spike length, number of spikelet/spike, 1000-grain weight and grain yield/plant of wheat plants inoculated with AMF increased significantly, compared with the non-inoculated control plants under water stress”
t0“drought-stressed wheat plant (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
1000-grain weight and grain yield per plant of wheat inoculated with AMF increased significantly under water stress compared with non-inoculated controls.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- inoculated with AMFe2
- Interactor
- AMFe2symbiont
- Outcome
- 1000-grain weight and grain yield/plante2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Qualifier
- under water stresse2
- Comparator
- non-inoculated control plantse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Number of spikes/plant, spike length, number of spikelet/spike, 1000-grain weight and grain yield/plant of wheat plants inoculated with AMF increased significantly, compared with the non-inoculated control plants under water stress”
t0“drought-stressed wheat plant (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with SN had a relatively higher impact on promoting wheat growth than inoculation with AA and GG.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- inoculation with SNe3
- Interactor
- SNe3symbiont
- Outcome
- impact on promoting the growth of wheat plantse3
- Direction
- relatively highere3
- Comparator
- AA and GGe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“current results demonstrated that inoculation with SN had relatively higher impact on promoting the growth of wheat plants followed by AA and GG”
t0“drought-stressed wheat plant (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with AMF from different families was more effective in improving wheat growth than AMF from the same genus or mono-inoculation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- inoculation with AMF belonging to different familiese4
- Interactor
- AMFe4symbiont
- Outcome
- improving plant growthe4
- Direction
- more effectivee4
- Comparator
- AMF from the same genus and with mono-inoculatione4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“inoculation with AMF belonging to different families was more effective in improving plant growth than AMF from the same genus and with mono-inoculation”
t0“drought-stressed wheat plant (Triticum aestivum L.)”
The same questions in other papers
Funneliformis mosseae · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →Gigaspora · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Funneliformis monosporus · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
transgenic · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →mycorrhiza · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
68 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 papers →mycorrhiza · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
99 papers more in this group
See all 103 papers →inoculation · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
475 papers in the same direction as this paper · 55 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
528 papers more in this group
See all 532 papers →inoculation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
548 papers in the same direction as this paper · 60 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
610 papers more in this group
See all 614 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.