4.0 Article

ARBUSCULAR MYCORRHIZAL INOCULATION INCREASES BIOMASS OF EUTERPE EDULIS AND ARCHONTOPHOENIX ALEXANDRAE AFTER TWO YEARS UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS

期刊

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIA DO SOLO
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 1103-1112

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIA DO SOLO
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-06832012000400005

关键词

palm species; soluble carbohydrates; plant carbon; field inoculation; allometric equations

资金

  1. CAPES
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [302667/2009-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) of tree seedlings in the nursery is a biotechnological strategy to improve growth, survival after transplanting, biomass production and to reduce the use of fertilizers. Archontophoenix alexandrae and Euterpe edulis are palm species used in southern Brazil to produce the palm heart, the latter being included in the list of threatened species due to the overexploitation of its native population. The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the effect of mycorrhizal inoculation on growth and physiological parameters of A. alexandrae and E. edulis. After germination, the seedlings were inoculated (AMF) or not (CTL) with AMF in the treatments. Values of chlorophyll content, biomass and shoot phosphorus were not statistically different between the AMF and CTL treatments, after five months in the greenhouse. Inoculation with AMF significantly increased the levels of starch and soluble carbohydrates in shoots and roots of both species. Under field conditions, AMF had no effect on stem diameter and height after 12 and 24 months, but total plant biomass and leaf, stem and root biomass were greater in AMF than in CTL plants. The data indicated that AMF inoculation in the nursery has a strong effect on biomass accumulation after growing for 24 months under field conditions. Therefore, AMF inoculation should be considered an important strategy to increase growth and production of these economically important tropical palm species.

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

4.0
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