4.7 Article

Growth, P uptake and rhizosphere properties of wheat and canola genotypes in an alkaline soil with low P availability

期刊

BIOLOGY AND FERTILITY OF SOILS
卷 44, 期 1, 页码 143-153

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00374-007-0188-8

关键词

canola; fatty acid methylester (FAME); microbial community composition; P uptake; rhizosphere; ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis (RISA); root length; wheat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to assess the role of soil type on growth, P uptake and rhizosphere properties of wheat and canola genotypes in an alkaline soil with low P availability. Two wheat (Goldmark and Janz) and two canola genotypes (Drum and Outback) were grown in a calcareous soil (pH 8.5) at two P levels [no P addition (0P) or addition of 200 mg kg(-1) P as Ca-3(PO4)(2) (200P)] and harvested at flowering or maturity. Shoot and root dry weight, root length and shoot P content were greater in the two canola genotypes than in wheat. There were no consistent differences in available P, microbial P and phosphatase activity in the rhizosphere of the different genotypes. Shoot P content was significantly positively correlated with root length, pH and phosphatase activity in the rhizosphere. The microbial community composition, assessed by fatty acid methylester analysis, of the canola genotypes differed strongly from that of the wheat genotypes. The weight percentage bacterial fatty acids, the bacteria/fungi (b/f) ratio and the diversity of fatty acids were greater in the rhizosphere of the canolas than in the rhizosphere of the wheat genotypes. In contrast to the earlier studies in an acidic soil, only small differences in growth and P uptake between the genotypes of one crop were detected in the alkaline soil used here. The results confirmed the importance of root length for P uptake in soils with low P availability and suggest that the rhizosphere microbial community composition may play a role in the better growth of the canola compared to the wheat genotypes.

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