4.6 Article

Soil sand content can alter effects of different taxa of mycorrhizal fungi on plant biomass production of grassland species

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOIL BIOLOGY
卷 47, 期 3, 页码 175-181

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2011.03.001

关键词

AMF inoculation; AMF taxa; Biomass allocation; Plant biomass production; Grassland; Soil texture; Plant growth responses; Root growth; Shoot growth

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P20171-B16]
  2. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P20171] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this greenhouse experiment we tested whether (i) ubiquitous arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) taxa (Glomus claroideum, Glomus geosporum, Glomus intraradices, Glomus mosseae) singly and in a mixture differently affect growth and biomass production of four co-occurring grassland species (grass: Arrhenatherum elatius, non-leguminous forbs: Plantago lanceolata, Salvia pratensis and leguminous forb Trifolium pratense), and (ii) different soil sand contents alter AMF influence. We hypothesized that AMF effects on plants will increase with an increased AMF diversity and with increasing sand content. Percent AMF colonization of roots differed between plant species and AMF taxa and was higher with higher sand content. Plant growth responses to AMF were species-specific both regarding plants and AMF. Generally, biomass production of the non-leguminous forbs was the most responsive, the grass species the least and the legume intermediate both for AMF treatments and sand content. Across species, AMF influence on plant biomass increased with increasing soil sand content. Plant species growing in soil containing a mix of four AMF taxa showed similar growth responses than species in soil containing only one AMF taxon. These results suggest that both interference among AMF taxa and soil sand content can trigger the influence of AMF on plant production in grassland species. (C) 2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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

4.6
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