4.7 Article

Effect of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Lowland Rice Growth and Yield (Oryza sativa L.) under Different Farming Practices

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy13112803

关键词

arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; bio-fertilizer; vetiver; intercropping

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the growth and yield responses of Sri Lankan lowland rice were evaluated under different soil nutrient management systems, with the application of beneficial Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and intercropping with vetiver grass. The results showed that the utilization of AMF and vetiver in organic soil significantly increased the grain yield of rice.
In this study, a field experiment was conducted to evaluate the growth and yield responses of Sri Lankan lowland rice (Oryza sativa L.) with the application of beneficial Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculum and intercropping with highly mycorrhizal-dependent vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides L.) under two different soil nutrient management systems (NMSs): conventional/chemical (CNMS) and organic (ONMS). The experiment was designed as a split plot with three blocks. Each CNMS and ONMS experiment included an untreated control (T0) and three treatments-AMF inoculation (T1), vetiver intercropping (T2), and the combination of AMF and vetiver (T3). According to the results, the colonization of rice roots with AMF was not affected significantly by the treatments and ranged from 0-15.8%. The effect was very low or absent in the early stage and then higher in the later stages of the rice plant. Furthermore, plant growth was not significantly different between the two NMSs, although grain yield was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in ONMS than for the respective controls (T0), with the order T1 (0.45 kg/m(2)) > T2 (0.42 kg/m(2)) > T3 (0.41 kg/m(2)) in CNMS and T2 (0.44 kg/m(2)) > T1 (0.41 kg/m(2)) > T3 (0.40 kg/m(2)), thus suggesting the utilization of AMF and vetiver in a lowland rice farming system is beneficial.

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