4.4 Article

Plant Growth Stimulation and Root Colonization Potential of In Vivo versus In Vitro Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Inocula

期刊

HORTSCIENCE
卷 48, 期 7, 页码 897-901

出版社

AMER SOC HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE
DOI: 10.21273/HORTSCI.48.7.897

关键词

inoculum production; biofertilizer; spore morphology; Glomus intraradices; Rhizophagus irregularis; root organ culture

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness MINECO [AGL2010-15017]
  2. CAPES Foundation, Ministry of Education of Brazil, Brasilia/DF-Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inoculum of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, with growing use in horticulture, is produced mainly in two technically different cultivation systems: in vivo culture in symbiosis with living host plants or in vitro culture in which the fungus life cycle develops in association with transformed roots. To evaluate the effectiveness and the infectivity of a defined isolate obtained by both production methods, a replicated comparative evaluation experiment was designed using different propagules of Rhizophagus irregularis produced in vivo on leek plants or in vitro in monoxenic culture on transformed carrot roots. The size of the spores obtained under both cultivation methods was first assessed and bulk inoculum, spores, sievings, and mycorrhizal root fragments were used to inoculate leek plantlets. Spores produced in vitro were significantly smaller than those produced in vivo. Although all mycorrhizal propagules used as a source of inoculum were able to colonize plants, in all cases, leek plants inoculated with propagules obtained in vivo achieved significantly higher mycorrhizal colonization rates than plants inoculated with in vitro inocula. Inoculation with in vivo bulk inoculum and in vivo mycorrhizal root fragments were the only treatments increasing plant growth. These results indicate that the production system of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi itself can have implications in the stimulation of plant growth and in experimental results.

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

4.4
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