| Literature DB >> 29963313 |
Gopal Selvakumar1, Pyoung Ho Yi1, Seong Eun Lee1, Charlotte C Shagol2, Seung Gab Han1, Tongmin Sa3, Bong Nam Chung1.
Abstract
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are well-known for their ability to improve plant growth and help plants withstand abiotic stress conditions. Unlike other fungi and bacteria, AMF cannot be stored, as they are obligate biotrophs. Long-term preservation of AMF spores is challenging and may lead to the loss of viability and efficiency. This study aimed to understand the effect of prolonged subculture of AMF species on the growth and glomalin-related soil protein (GRSP) from red pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). AMF spores were mass-produced using different techniques and subcultured in pots with sorghum sudangrass as the host plant for 3 years. Experimental soil samples were collected from natural grassland. Five different AMF inocula were used in triplicate as treatments. After 70 days of growth, red pepper plants were harvested and plant dry weight, plant nutrient content, mycorrhizal colonization, AMF spore count, and soil glomalin content were determined. AMF-treated plants displayed higher dry weight than controls, with only fruit dry weight being significantly different. Similarly, significant differences in phosphorous and potassium contents of the above-ground plant parts were observed between mycorrhizal and control treatments. In addition, soil GRSP content was significantly higher in plants inoculated with Rhizophagus sp. and Gigaspora margarita. The increased plant growth and GRSP content suggest that AMF can be maintained for 3 years without losing their efficiency if subcultured regularly with different symbiotic host plants.Entities:
Keywords: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; Claroideoglomus; Gigaspora; glomalin; pepper
Year: 2018 PMID: 29963313 PMCID: PMC6023257 DOI: 10.1080/12298093.2018.1461315
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mycobiology ISSN: 1229-8093 Impact factor: 1.858
Arbuscular mycorrhizal strains used in this study.
| Strain name | Propagation technique | Storage period | Culture number | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monosporic culture | 2013–2016 | BEG247 | Lee et al. [ | |
| Monosporic culture | 2013–2016 | KCTC18354P | Krishnamoorthy et al. [ | |
| Single spore inoculation method | 2013–2016 | BEG12 | Unpublished data | |
| Slide method | 2013–2016 | KCTC18540P | Selvakumar et al. [ | |
| Slide method | 2013–2016 | KCTC18443P | Selvakumar et al. [ |
Figure 1.Mycorrhizal inoculation effect on red pepper plant growth. (A) Shoot dry weight; (B) Root dry weight; (C) Fruit dry weight; and (D) Number of fruits. Each value represents the mean of three replicates ± standard error. T1: Control; T2: C. etunicatum; T3: Rhizophagus sp.; T4: F. mosseae; T5: G. margarita; T6: C. lamellosum.
Figure 2.Mycorrhizal inoculation effect on spore production and glomalin content. (A) Spore count; (B) Mycorrhizal root colonization; (C) EE-GRSP content; and (D) TE-GRSP content. Each value represents the mean of three replicates ± standard error. T1: Control; T2: C. etunicatum; T3: Rhizophagus sp.; T4: F. mosseae; T5: G. margarita; T6: C. lamellosum.
Inoculation effect of AMF strains on nutrient accumulation in red pepper shoot and root tissues.
| (mg/plant) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plant | Treatments | T-N (%) | P | K | Ca | Mg |
| Shoot | T1 | 1.46 ± 0.23 a | 09.39 ± 2.25 b | 284.12 ± 69.83 a | 39.27 ± 7.27 a | 29.08 ± 5.72 a |
| T2 | 1.39 ± 0.13 a | 16.28 ± 1.97 ab | 360.49 ± 11.21 a | 50.17 ± 4.72 a | 34.09 ± 2.79 a | |
| T3 | 1.51 ± 0.20 a | 13.30 ± 3.91 ab | 311.28 ± 101.08 a | 38.44 ± 8.89 a | 27.01 ± 5.86 a | |
| T4 | 1.56 ± 0.08 a | 13.48 ± 2.27 ab | 333.18 ± 19.63 a | 42.58 ± 2.42 a | 30.10 ± 1.29 a | |
| T5 | 1.12 ± 0.01 a | 19.66 ± 3.54 a | 376.06 ± 22.41 a | 50.39 ± 3.04 a | 37.07 ± 2.98 a | |
| T6 | 1.10 ± 0.02 a | 15.64 ± 2.74 ab | 356.00 ± 50.01 a | 41.23 ± 5.42 a | 29.83 ± 4.15 a | |
| Root | T1 | 1.63 ± 0.19 a | 1.99 ± 0.52 a | 47.22 ± 5.25 a | 07.66 ± 2.14 a | 06.80 ± 1.13 a |
| T2 | 1.56 ± 0.12 a | 3.70 ± 0.15 a | 51.64 ± 3.51 a | 13.06 ± 1.71 a | 13.03 ± 1.19 a | |
| T3 | 1.64 ± 0.13 a | 2.84 ± 0.93 a | 50.52 ± 17.7 a | 09.97 ± 3.36 a | 10.31 ± 3.64 a | |
| T4 | 1.38 ± 0.09 a | 3.38 ± 0.29 a | 59.01 ± 0.53 a | 12.73 ± 1.29 a | 12.53 ± 1.39 a | |
| T5 | 1.23 ± 0.09 a | 4.06 ± 1.00 a | 53.44 ± 3.25 a | 15.12 ± 5.56 a | 13.18 ± 4.10 a | |
| T6 | 1.25 ± 0.07 a | 3.43 ± 0.92 a | 66.16 ± 6.48 a | 13.21 ± 2.67 a | 12.43 ± 2.69 a | |
T1: Control; T2: C. etunicatum; T3: Rhizophagus sp.; T4: G. mosseae; T5: G. margarita; T6: C. lamellosum. Each value represents the mean of three replicates ± standard error. Each value in a column followed by the same letter was not significantly different at p ≤ .05.
Relationship between soil properties and soil glomalin content according to Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis.
| Properties | Av. P2O5 | K | Ca | Mg | T-N | Spore count | Colonization | EE-GRSP | TE-GRSP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Av. P2O5 | 1 | ||||||||
| K | −.409 | 1 | |||||||
| Ca | .632 | −.549 | 1 | ||||||
| Mg | −.410 | .888* | −.582 | 1 | |||||
| T-N | −.591 | −.281 | −.507 | −.109 | 1 | ||||
| Spore count | .217 | −.512 | .094 | −.068 | .396 | 1 | |||
| Colonization | .234 | −.729 | −.029 | −.441 | .617 | .812* | 1 | ||
| EE-GRSP | .852* | −.387 | .872* | −.411 | −.761 | .084 | −.065 | 1 | |
| TE-GRSP | .897* | −.554 | .830* | −.583 | −.633 | .137 | .123 | .966** | 1 |
*p < .05.
**p < .01.