4.7 Article

Fermentation of sugar beet waste by Aspergillus niger facilitates growth and P uptake of external mycelium of mixed populations of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi

期刊

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 485-492

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.08.019

关键词

arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; sugar beet waste; Aspergillus niger; biomarker fatty acids; phosphorus uptake; mycorrhiza hyphosphere

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sugar beet waste has potential value as a soil amendment and this work studied whether fermentation of the waste by Aspergillus niger would influence the growth and P uptake of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi. Plants were grown in compartmentalised growth units, each with a root compartment (RC) and two lateral root-free compartments (RFC). One RFC contained untreated soil while the other RFC contained soil, which was uniformly mixed with sugar beet waste, either untreated (SB) or degraded by A. niger (ASB) in a rock phosphate (RP)-supplied medium. The soil in each pair of RFC was labelled with P-33 and (32)p in order to measure P uptake by the AM fungal mycelium, of which length density was also measured. Whole cell fatty acid (WCFA) signatures were used as biomarkers of the AM fungal mycelium and other soil microorganisms. The amount of biomarkers of saprotrophic fungi and both Grain-positive and Gram-negative bacteria was higher in SB than in ASB treatments. Whilst ASB increased growth and activity of AM mycelium, SB had the opposite effect. Moreover, shoot P content was increased by the addition of ASB, and by inoculation with AM fungi. Modification of soil microbial structure and production of exudates by A. niger, as a consequence of fermentation process of sugar beet waste, could possibly explain the increase of AM growth in ASB treatments. On the other hand, the highest P uptake was a result of the solubilisation of rock phosphate by A. niger during the fermentation. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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