| Literature DB >> 34063150 |
Songmei Shi1,2, Xie Luo1,2, Xingshui Dong1,2, Yuling Qiu1,2, Chenyang Xu1,2, Xinhua He1,2,3.
Abstract
Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Entities:
Keywords: AMF; biomass production; carbon dioxide enrichment; nutrient absorption; soil nitrogen content; soil organic carbon
Year: 2021 PMID: 34063150 PMCID: PMC8148158 DOI: 10.3390/jof7050361
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Fungi (Basel) ISSN: 2309-608X
Percentages of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) colonization, nodule biomass production, shoot biomass production, root biomass production, root/shoot ratio, and total biomass production in Funneliformis mosseae inoculated faba beans grown for 12 weeks at ambient CO2 (ACO2) and elevated CO2 (eCO2).
| Treatment | AM (%) | Nodule Biomass | Shoot Biomass | Root Biomass | Root/Shoot | Total Biomass | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACO2 | M− | 0 | 0.04 ± 0.01b,x | 1.91 ± 0.04b,y | 1.01 ± 0.09b,x | 0.53 ± 0.06a,x | 2.91 ± 0.07b,y |
| M+ | 43.01 ± 2.49b | 0.05 ± 0.01b,x | 2.15 ± 0.08b,x | 1.13 ± 0.08b,x | 0.57 ± 0.05a,x | 3.18 ± 0.09b,x | |
| eCO2 | M− | 0 | 0.07 ± 0.00a,y | 3.24 ± 0.09a,y | 1.26 ± 0.05a,x | 0.39 ± 0.01b,x | 4.50 ± 0.08a,y |
| M+ | 59.64 ± 3.04a | 0.13 ± 0.02a,x | 3.69 ± 0.09a,x | 1.39 ± 0.14a,x | 0.37 ± 0.01b,x | 5.05 ± 0.12a,x | |
| ANOVA | |||||||
| CO2 | ** | *** | *** | ** | ** | *** | |
| AMF | * | ** | ns | ns | ** | ||
| CO2 × AMF | ** | ns | ns | ns | ns | ||
Data (means ± SE, n = 3) followed by different letters indicate significant differences between CO2 treatments for the same AMF inoculation (a, b) and between AMF inoculations for the same CO2 treatment (x, y) at P < 0.05 as revealed by Tukey’s test. ANOVA: ns not significant; *, **, and *** significant at P ≤ 0.05, P ≤ 0.01, and P ≤ 0.001, respectively. M+ or M–, with or without F. mosseae inoculation.
Figure 1Concentrations of carbon (A,E), nitrogen (B,F), phosphorus (C,G), and potassium (D,H) in shoots and roots of Funneliformis mosseae inoculated faba beans grown for 12 weeks at ambient CO2 (ACO2) and elevated CO2 (eCO2). Data (means ± SE, n = 3) followed by different letters indicate significant differences between CO2 treatments for the same AMF inoculation (a, b) and between AMF inoculations for the same CO2 treatment (x, y) at P < 0.05 as revealed by Tukey’s test. Statistical comparisons (two-way ANOVA) between AMF or CO2 treatments as well as their interaction (AMF × CO2) are presented for each variable.
Figure 2Accumulations of carbon (A,E,I), nitrogen (B,F,J), phosphorus (C,G,K), and potassium (D,H,L) in shoots, roots, and total plants of Funneliformis mosseae inoculated faba beans grown for 12 weeks at ambient CO2 (ACO2) and elevated CO2 (eCO2). Data (means ± SE, n = 3) followed by different letters indicate significant differences between CO2 treatments for the same AMF inoculation (a, b) and between AMF inoculations for the same CO2 treatment (x, y) at P < 0.05 as revealed by Tukey’s test. Statistical comparisons (two-way ANOVA) between AMF or CO2 treatments as well as their interaction (AMF × CO2) are presented for each variable.
Figure 3Nirogen (A), phosphorus (B), and potassium (C) use efficiency in the total plants of Funneliformis mosseae inoculated faba beans grown for 12 weeks at ambient CO2 (ACO2) and elevated CO2 (eCO2). Data (means ± SE, n = 3) followed by different letters indicate significant differences between CO2 treatments for the same AMF inoculation (a,b) and between AMF inoculations for the same CO2 treatment (x, y) at P < 0.05 as revealed by Tukey’s test. Statistical comparisons (two-way ANOVA) between AMF or CO2 treatments as well as their interaction (AMF CO2) are presented for each variable.
Figure 4Soil organic carbon (A), soil available N (B), soil NH4+–N (C), soil NO3− –N (D), available phosphorus (E), and soil available potassium (F) in soils of Funneliformis mosseae inoculated faba beans grown for 12 weeks at ambient CO2 (ACO2) and elevated CO2 (eCO2). Data (means ± SE, n = 3) followed by different letters indicate significant differences between CO2 treatments for the same AMF inoculation (a, b) and between AMF inoculations for the same CO2 treatment (x, y) at P < 0.05, as revealed by Tukey’s test. Statistical comparisons (two-way ANOVA) between AMF or CO2 treatments as well as their interaction (AMF × CO2) are presented for each variable.
Figure 5Relationships between carbon (A–C), nitrogen (D–F), phosphorus (G–I), and potassium (J–L) concentration in shoots, roots, and soils and plant biomass production of Funneliformis mosseae inoculated faba beans grown for 12 weeks at ambient CO2 (ACO2) and elevated CO2 (eCO2). Open circles and triangles represent data under ACO2 and eCO2 in non-AMF plants, and closed circles and triangles represent data under ACO2 and eCO2 in AMF plants, respectively. Regressions are shown for non-AMF (dotted lines) and for AMF (solid lines) treatments, n = 6.