Paper · 1981 · Mycologia

Factors Affecting Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Development and Growth of Cotton

Lynn M. Pugh; R. W. Roncadori; R. S. Hussey

13
claims
21
verbatim quotes
7
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

SUMMARYThe influence of inoculum level, soil fertility, soil temperature, and cotton cultivar on vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal development and plant growth were determined. In a phosphorus-deficient soil, inoculum levels of either 200 or 400 azygospores of Gigaspora margarita per plant significantly stimulated cotton growth, whereas rates of 10, 50, and 100 spores per plant had little or no effect. In a soil deficient in nitrogen and phosphorus, G. margarita increased plant growth only when sufficient nitrogen was added, but the mycorrhizal growth response was not as great as when both nitrogen and superphosphate were added to non-mycorrhizal plants. When phosphorus was deficient in the soil mix, mycorrhizal plants consistently had a higher content of this element in the foliage than did nonmycorrhizal cotton. Addition of superphosphate (25 μg or more of P/g of soil) to a soil containing 10 μg/g of phosphorus produced a growth increase at least equal to the growth response induced by G. margarita or Glomus etunicatus, and rates of 50 and 150 μg/g suppressed root infection. Maximum mycorrhizal development by G. margarita and subsequent cotton growth stimulation occurred at 30 and 24 C and was slight or absent at 19 or 14 C. Growth stimulation of five cotton cultivars inoculated with G. margarita varied considerably; Coker 310 and Stoneville 213 responded best, Acala 1517–70 and Deltapine 16 were marginally influenced, and Paymaster 909 was relatively unaffected.

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 13

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In a phosphorus-deficient soil, 200 or 400 azygospores of Gigaspora margarita per plant significantly stimulated cotton growth.

Treatment
inoculum levels of either 200 or 400 azygospores of Gigaspora margarita per plante0
Interactor
Gigaspora margaritaGigaspora margaritae0symbiont
Outcome
growthe0
Direction
stimulatede0
Setting
phosphorus-deficient soile0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Gigaspora margarita
Gigaspora margarita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMike Guether · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In a phosphorus-deficient soil, inoculum levels of either 200 or 400 azygospores of Gigaspora margarita per plant significantly stimulated cotton growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 176–328 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In a phosphorus-deficient soil, rates of 10, 50 and 100 spores of Gigaspora margarita per plant had little or no effect on cotton growth.

Treatment
rates of 10, 50, and 100 spores per plante0
Interactor
Gigaspora margaritaGigaspora margaritae0symbiont
Outcome
growthe0
Direction
little or no effecte0
Setting
phosphorus-deficient soile0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Gigaspora margarita
Gigaspora margarita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMike Guether · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In a phosphorus-deficient soil, inoculum levels of either 200 or 400 azygospores of Gigaspora margarita per plant significantly stimulated cotton growth, whereas rates of 10, 50, and 100 spores per plant had little or no effect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 176–403 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In a soil deficient in nitrogen and phosphorus, G. margarita increased plant growth only when sufficient nitrogen was added, but the response was smaller than when both nitrogen and superphosphate were added to non-mycorrhizal plants.

Treatment
G. margaritae0
Interactor
G. margaritaGigaspora margaritae0symbiont
Outcome
plant growthe0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
only when sufficient nitrogen was added, but the mycorrhizal growth response was not as great as when both nitrogen and superphosphate were added to non-mycorrhizal plantse0
Setting
soil deficient in nitrogen and phosphoruse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Gigaspora margarita
Gigaspora margarita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMike Guether · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Growth of Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–83 · show in text ↑
e0

“In a soil deficient in nitrogen and phosphorus, G. margarita increased plant growth only when sufficient nitrogen was added, but the mycorrhizal growth response was not as great as when both nitrogen and superphosphate were added to non-mycorrhizal plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 405–660 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

When soil phosphorus was deficient, mycorrhizal cotton plants consistently had a higher foliar phosphorus content than nonmycorrhizal cotton.

Organ / stage
foliagee0
Treatment
mycorrhizal plantse0
Outcome
content of this element in the foliagee0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
nonmycorrhizal cottone0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“When phosphorus was deficient in the soil mix, mycorrhizal plants consistently had a higher content of this element in the foliage than did nonmycorrhizal cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 662–823 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Superphosphate at 25 ug P/g soil or more in a soil with 10 ug/g phosphorus produced a growth increase at least equal to the response induced by G. margarita or Glomus etunicatus.

Treatment
Addition of superphosphate (25 μg or more of P/g of soil)e0
Interactor
G. margaritaGigaspora margaritae0symbiont
Second interactor
Glomus etunicatuse0symbiont
Outcome
growthe0
Direction
at least equale0
Comparator
growth response induced by G. margarita or Glomus etunicatuse0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Gigaspora margarita
Gigaspora margarita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMike Guether · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Growth of Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–83 · show in text ↑
e0

“Addition of superphosphate (25 μg or more of P/g of soil) to a soil containing 10 μg/g of phosphorus produced a growth increase at least equal to the growth response induced by G. margarita or Glomus etunicatus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 825–1035 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Superphosphate rates of 50 and 150 ug/g suppressed root infection.

Treatment
rates of 50 and 150 μg/ge0
Outcome
root infectione0
Direction
suppressede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Growth of Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–83 · show in text ↑
e0

“rates of 50 and 150 μg/g suppressed root infection”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1041–1091 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maximum mycorrhizal development by G. margarita and subsequent cotton growth stimulation occurred at 30 and 24 C.

Treatment
30 and 24 Ce0
Interactor
G. margaritaGigaspora margaritae0symbiont
Outcome
Maximum mycorrhizal development by G. margarita and subsequent cotton growth stimulatione0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Gigaspora margarita
Gigaspora margarita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMike Guether · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Maximum mycorrhizal development by G. margarita and subsequent cotton growth stimulation occurred at 30 and 24 C and was slight or absent at 19 or 14 C”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1093–1244 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mycorrhizal development by G. margarita and cotton growth stimulation were slight or absent at 19 or 14 C.

Treatment
19 or 14 Ce0
Interactor
G. margaritaGigaspora margaritae0symbiont
Outcome
Maximum mycorrhizal development by G. margarita and subsequent cotton growth stimulatione0
Qualifier
slight or absente0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Gigaspora margarita
Gigaspora margarita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMike Guether · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Maximum mycorrhizal development by G. margarita and subsequent cotton growth stimulation occurred at 30 and 24 C and was slight or absent at 19 or 14 C”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1093–1244 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Growth stimulation by G. margarita was among the best in cotton cultivar Coker 310.

Material
Coker 310e1
Interactor
G. margaritaGigaspora margaritae0symbiont
Outcome
Growth stimulatione0
Qualifier
responded beste1

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Gigaspora margarita
Gigaspora margarita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMike Guether · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Growth stimulation of five cotton cultivars inoculated with G. margarita”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1246–1318 · show in text ↑
e1

“Coker 310 and Stoneville 213 responded best”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1340–1383 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Growth stimulation by G. margarita was among the best in cotton cultivar Stoneville 213.

Material
Stoneville 213e1
Interactor
G. margaritaGigaspora margaritae0symbiont
Outcome
Growth stimulatione0
Qualifier
responded beste1

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Gigaspora margarita
Gigaspora margarita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMike Guether · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Growth stimulation of five cotton cultivars inoculated with G. margarita”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1246–1318 · show in text ↑
e1

“Coker 310 and Stoneville 213 responded best”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1340–1383 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton cultivar Acala 1517–70 was marginally influenced by G. margarita inoculation.

Material
Acala 1517–70e1
Interactor
G. margaritaGigaspora margaritae0symbiont
Outcome
Growth stimulatione0
Qualifier
marginally influencede1

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Gigaspora margarita
Gigaspora margarita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMike Guether · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Growth stimulation of five cotton cultivars inoculated with G. margarita”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1246–1318 · show in text ↑
e1

“Acala 1517–70 and Deltapine 16 were marginally influenced”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1385–1442 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton cultivar Deltapine 16 was marginally influenced by G. margarita inoculation.

Material
Deltapine 16e1
Interactor
G. margaritaGigaspora margaritae0symbiont
Outcome
Growth stimulatione0
Qualifier
marginally influencede1

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Gigaspora margarita
Gigaspora margarita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMike Guether · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Growth stimulation of five cotton cultivars inoculated with G. margarita”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1246–1318 · show in text ↑
e1

“Acala 1517–70 and Deltapine 16 were marginally influenced”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1385–1442 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton cultivar Paymaster 909 was relatively unaffected by G. margarita inoculation.

Material
Paymaster 909e1
Interactor
G. margaritaGigaspora margaritae0symbiont
Outcome
Growth stimulatione0
Qualifier
relatively unaffectede1

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Gigaspora margarita
Gigaspora margarita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMike Guether · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Growth stimulation of five cotton cultivars inoculated with G. margarita”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1246–1318 · show in text ↑
e1

“Paymaster 909 was relatively unaffected”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1448–1487 · show in text ↑

Gigaspora margarita · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)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 · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

73 papers: 61 positive, 12 negative or no effect

60 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

69 papers more in this group

See all 73 papers →

phosphorus · Gigaspora margarita · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)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 →

mycorrhiza · molecular: metabolites · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 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.