Paper · 2014 · Notulae Scientia Biologicae

Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Colonization Enhances Biochemical Status and Mitigates Adverse Salt Effect on Two Legumes

Promita DATTA; Mohan Vinayak KULKARNI

8
claims
13
verbatim quotes
7
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Symbiotic association between arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) species and host plant roots improves plant growth and protects them from several abiotic stress factors. In the present study, the effect of Glomus mosseae and Glomus fasciculatum as an individual inoculation and in combination was studied on two legumes (Glycine max and Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) under soil salinity stress gradient [1.04 (control) to 8.26 dS/m]. Individual and co-inoculation of both the AM fungi alleviated adverse salt effect, with improvement in plant dry weight matter and biochemical parameters. However, these two isolates worked better in combination with respect to higher accumulation of soluble carbohydrate, reducing sugar, protein, proline concentration etc. C. tetragonoloba showed better response as compared to G. max in relation to improvement in nutritional profile under salt stress after AM treatment. As compared to non-mycorrhizal counterparts, co-inoculation with G. mosseae and G. fasciculatum in C. tetragonoloba enhanced total chlorophyll (14.83% at soil salinity of 3.78 dS/m), soluble carbohydrate (17.26% at soil salinity of 5.94 dS/m), proline (8.79% at soil salinity of 3.78 dS/m) while exposed to different soil salinity levels. Also, co-colonization with both the isolates showed more root colonization (%) and may be responsible for the better effect in salt stress alleviation. Electrolyte leakage of mycorrhizal plants was lowered at soil salinity gradient of 2.10 to 8.26 dS/m and hence, maintained membrane stability. These two isolates can be utilized as bio-inoculant in alleviation of adverse salt effect in soil in association with the two test legume plants.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

AM fungal inoculation alleviated salt effects and improved plant dry matter and biochemical traits.

Taxon
Glycine max and Cyamopsis tetragonolobaCyamopsis tetragonolobaGlycine maxe1
Treatment
Individual and co-inoculation of both the AM fungie0
Outcome
plant dry weight matter and biochemical parameterse0
Direction
improvemente0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cyamopsis tetragonoloba
Cyamopsis tetragonoloba · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryTon Rulkens · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Individual and co-inoculation of both the AM fungi alleviated adverse salt effect, with improvement in plant dry weight matter and biochemical parameters.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 423–577 · show in text ↑
e1

“two legumes (Glycine max and Cyamopsis tetragonoloba)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 302–355 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined inoculation produced greater accumulation of soluble carbohydrate, reducing sugar, protein and proline.

Taxon
Glycine max and Cyamopsis tetragonolobaCyamopsis tetragonolobaGlycine maxe1
Treatment
these two isolatese0
Outcome
soluble carbohydrate, reducing sugar, protein, proline concentratione0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
in combinatione0

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

Cyamopsis tetragonoloba
Cyamopsis tetragonoloba · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryTon Rulkens · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“these two isolates worked better in combination with respect to higher accumulation of soluble carbohydrate, reducing sugar, protein, proline concentration etc.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 587–747 · show in text ↑
e1

“two legumes (Glycine max and Cyamopsis tetragonoloba)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 302–355 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

C. tetragonoloba responded better than G. max in nutritional profile after AM treatment under salt stress.

Taxon
C. tetragonolobaCyamopsis tetragonolobae0
Treatment
AM treatmente0
Outcome
nutritional profilee0
Direction
improvemente0
Comparator
G. maxe0

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

Cyamopsis tetragonoloba
Cyamopsis tetragonoloba · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryTon Rulkens · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“C. tetragonoloba showed better response as compared to G. max in relation to improvement in nutritional profile under salt stress after AM treatment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 748–897 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Co-inoculation increased total chlorophyll by 14.83% at 3.78 dS/m in C. tetragonoloba.

Taxon
C. tetragonolobaCyamopsis tetragonolobae0
Treatment
co-inoculation with G. mosseae and G. fasciculatume0
Outcome
total chlorophylle0
Direction
enhancede0
Value
14.83%e0
Qualifier
soil salinity of 3.78 dS/me0
Comparator
non-mycorrhizal counterpartse1

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

Cyamopsis tetragonoloba
Cyamopsis tetragonoloba · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryTon Rulkens · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“co-inoculation with G. mosseae and G. fasciculatum in C. tetragonoloba enhanced total chlorophyll (14.83% at soil salinity of 3.78 dS/m)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 943–1079 · show in text ↑
e1

“As compared to non-mycorrhizal counterparts”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 898–941 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Co-inoculation increased soluble carbohydrate by 17.26% at 5.94 dS/m.

Taxon
C. tetragonolobaCyamopsis tetragonolobae0
Treatment
co-inoculation with G. mosseae and G. fasciculatume0
Outcome
soluble carbohydratee0
Direction
enhancede0
Value
17.26%e0
Qualifier
soil salinity of 5.94 dS/me0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cyamopsis tetragonoloba
Cyamopsis tetragonoloba · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryTon Rulkens · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“co-inoculation with G. mosseae and G. fasciculatum in C. tetragonoloba enhanced total chlorophyll (14.83% at soil salinity of 3.78 dS/m), soluble carbohydrate (17.26% at soil salinity of 5.94 dS/m)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 943–1140 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Co-inoculation increased proline by 8.79% at 3.78 dS/m.

Taxon
C. tetragonolobaCyamopsis tetragonolobae0
Treatment
co-inoculation with G. mosseae and G. fasciculatume0
Outcome
prolinee0
Direction
enhancede0
Value
8.79%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cyamopsis tetragonoloba
Cyamopsis tetragonoloba · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryTon Rulkens · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“co-inoculation with G. mosseae and G. fasciculatum in C. tetragonoloba enhanced total chlorophyll (14.83% at soil salinity of 3.78 dS/m), soluble carbohydrate (17.26% at soil salinity of 5.94 dS/m), proline (8.79% at soil salinity of 3.78 dS/m)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 943–1187 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Co-colonization increased root colonization.

Taxon
C. tetragonolobaCyamopsis tetragonolobae1
Outcome
root colonization (%)e0
Direction
moree0

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

Cyamopsis tetragonoloba
Cyamopsis tetragonoloba · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryTon Rulkens · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“co-colonization with both the isolates showed more root colonization (%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1243–1315 · show in text ↑
e1

“in C. tetragonoloba enhanced total chlorophyll”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 994–1040 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mycorrhizal plants had lower electrolyte leakage across the tested salinity gradient.

Taxon
Glycine max and Cyamopsis tetragonolobaCyamopsis tetragonolobaGlycine maxe1
Treatment
mycorrhizale0
Outcome
Electrolyte leakagee0
Direction
lowerede0
Qualifier
soil salinity gradient of 2.10 to 8.26 dS/me0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cyamopsis tetragonoloba
Cyamopsis tetragonoloba · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryTon Rulkens · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Electrolyte leakage of mycorrhizal plants was lowered at soil salinity gradient of 2.10 to 8.26 dS/m”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1389–1489 · show in text ↑
e1

“two legumes (Glycine max and Cyamopsis tetragonoloba)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 302–355 · show in text ↑

Rhizophagus fasciculatus · physiology: pigments · Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (cluster bean)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Funneliformis mosseae · quality: sugar starch · Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (cluster bean)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Rhizophagus fasciculatus · quality: sugar starch · Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (cluster bean)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Funneliformis mosseae · physiology: osmolytes · Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (cluster bean)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Rhizophagus fasciculatus · physiology: osmolytes · Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (cluster bean)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Funneliformis mosseae · physiology: pigments · Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (cluster bean)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

inoculation · physiology: pigments · Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (cluster bean)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 4 positive, 2 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

mycorrhiza · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results

87 papers: 79 positive, 8 negative or no effect

78 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

83 papers more in this group

See all 87 papers →

8 of 14 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.