4.7 Review

A Systematic Review of the Effects of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Root-Lesion Nematodes,Pratylenchusspp.

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00923

Keywords

arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; Pratylenchus; root-lesion nematodes; phytobiome interactions; Glomeromycota; systematic review

Categories

Funding

  1. University of Southern Queensland Research Training Program Scholarship
  2. Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) Research Scholarship [USQ1912-003RSX]
  3. USQ
  4. GRDC [DJP1907-002RMX]
  5. Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (QDAF) through the Broadacre Cropping Initiative

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Root-lesion nematodes (Pratylenchusspp.) and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) occupy the same ecological niche in the phytobiome of many agriculturally important crops. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi can enhance the resistance or tolerance of a plant toPratylenchusand previous studies have been undertaken to investigate the relationship between these organisms. A restructuring of the AMF phylum Glomeromycota has reallocated the species into genera according to molecular analysis. A systematic review of the literature was synthesized to assess the interaction betweenPratylenchusspp. and AMF using the revised classification. Plants inoculated with AMF generally exhibited greater tolerance as demonstrated by increased biomass underPratylenchuspressure. Species of AMF from the order Diversisporales tended to increasePratylenchuspopulation densities compared to those from the order Glomerales. Species from the generaFunneliformisandGlomushad a reductive effect onPratylenchuspopulation densities. The interaction between AMF andPratylenchusspp. showed variation in responses as a result of cultivar, crop species, and AMF species. Putative mechanisms involved in these interactions are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available