3.8 Article

Nodulation and growth of pasture legumes with naturalised soil rhizobia - 1. Annual Medicago spp.

期刊

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/EA99112

关键词

Rhizobium meliloti; soil rhizobia; nitrogen fixation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability of 11 species of annual medics (Medicago doliata, M. laciniata, M. littoralis, M. minima, M. orbicularis, M. polymorpha, M. praecox, M. rigidula, M. rigiduloides, M. tornata and M. truncatula) to nodulate and fix nitrogen with naturalised rhizobia from 28 South Australian soils was assessed. The number of rhizobia in the soils was estimated. Medic shoot dry matter production and nodulation were measured, after inoculation of medic seedlings with a soil suspension, in 2 glasshouse experiments. The number of medic rhizobia ranged from 0.4 x 10(2) to 1.5 x 10(6) per gram soil. Medicago laciniata was the only medic species tested which was not consistently nodulated by the soil rhizobia. While all the other species formed nodules, they varied widely in their ability to form an effective symbiosis. Symbiotic performance (which indicates how much growth the medic line achieved, when compared to an effective inoculation treatment) of the medic species ranged from 3% (M. rigiduloides) to 67% (M. praecox). Herald (M: littoralis) achieved a symbiotic performance of 49% and it was estimated that this would be insufficient to meet the nitrogen requirements of a Herald-based pasture during early growth. The symbiotic performance of Santiago (M: polymorpha) was low (17%) and erratic (from -6 to 72%). The ability of the rhizobia to form an effective symbiosis varied widely also between soil regions. For example, the rhizobia in Riverland soils resulted in only 31% of the shoot dry matter of those in Eyre Peninsula soils, in association with M: polymorpha. There are significant opportunities to improve the symbiotic performance of a number of the species of annual medics examined in this study. Options to improve the effectiveness of the symbiosis of medics with naturalised soil rhizobia are discussed.

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

3.8
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