4.5 Article

Contrasting response of seedlings of two tropical species Clusia minor and Clusia multiflora to mycorrhizal inoculation in two soils with different pH

期刊

TREES-STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 593-600

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00468-006-0074-2

关键词

arbuscular mycorrhizae; tropical tree; acidic soil; neutral soil; P fertilization

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Differences in mycotrophic growth and response to phosphorus (P) fertilization were studied in seedlings of two woody native species: Clusia minor L. and Clusia multiflora H.B.K. from a cloud montane forest of tropical America. Greenhouse investigation was undertaken to determine the relationships between mycorrhizal dependency of host species associated with P utilization and growth in two different soils contrasting in pH (acidic and neutral) and nutrient content. Four treatments were performed: sterilized soil; sterilized soil plus 375 mg/kg of triple superphosphate (TSP); sterilized soil inoculated with Scutellospora fulgida (20 g/pot); and sterilized soil plus S. fulgida and TSP, with 10 replications per treatment for the two species. Results showed that both Clusia species presented high growth response to increasing P availability, which indicates that the root morphology (magnolioid roots) of these species is not a limiting factor for the incorporation of P from soils. Plants inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) in acidic soil had significantly increased shoot and root biomass, leaf area and height, in comparison to the biomass of P-fertilized plants and nonmycorrhizal plants. In neutral soil, seedlings of C. minor and C. multiflora were negatively affected by inoculation with AMF. In contrast, a significant decrease in growth was observed when inoculated plants were compared with noninoculated plants on neutral soil. Results indicate that an increase in the availability of a limiting nutrient (P) can turn a balanced mutualistic relationship into a less balanced nonmutualistic one.

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

4.5
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