4.7 Article

Improving N2 fixation from the plant down: Compatibility of Trifolium subterraneum L. cultivars with soil rhizobia can influence symbiotic performance

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 327, 期 1-2, 页码 261-277

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-009-0052-8

关键词

Subterranean clover; Nodulation; Nodule function; Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii

资金

  1. GRDC (Grains Research and Development Institute)
  2. AWI (Australian Wool Innovation)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant genotypes of Trifolium subterraneum L. (subterranean clover) were evaluated for differences in symbiotic N-2 fixation with soil rhizobia, with the long-term aim of using plant selection to overcome sub-optimal N-2 fixation associated with poorly effective soil rhizobia. Symbiotic performance (SP) was assessed for 49 genotypes of subterranean clover with each of four pure Rhizobium strains isolated from soil. Plants were grown in N free media in the greenhouse and their shoot dry weights measured and expressed as a percentage of dry weight with R. leguminosarm bv. trifolii WSM1325, the recommended commercial inoculant. Average SP with two Rhizobium strains (H and J) ranged from completely ineffective to 80% of potential for the subterranean clover genotypes. Two clover cultivars with high (cv. Campeda) and low (cv. Clare) SP values were investigated in more detail. Campeda typically fixed more N-2 than Clare when inoculated with 30 soil extracts (4.2 vs 2.4 mg N-2 fixed/shoot) and with 14 pure strains isolated from those soils (4.2 vs 2.2 mg N-2 fixed/shoot). The poor performance of Clare could be attributed to interruptions at multiple stages of the symbiotic association, from nodule initiation (less nodules), nodule development (small, white nodules), through to reduced nodule function (N-2 fixed/mg nodule) depending on the inoculation treatment. Through the careful use of subterranean clover genotypes by plant breeders it should be possible to make significant gains in the SP of future subterranean clover cultivars.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据