4.6 Article

Responsiveness of Carob (Ceratonia siliqua L.) Plants to Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis Under Different Phosphate Fertilization Levels

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT GROWTH REGULATION
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 1243-1254

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00344-019-09929-6

关键词

Ceratonia siliqua; Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; Phosphorus deficiency; Phosphorus fertilization; Growth; Physiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This experiment was carried out in pots in a greenhouse to evaluate the effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Funneliformis mosseae, Rhizophagus intraradices and Rhizophagus fasciculatus) on carob plant performance under different levels of phosphate fertilization. Non-mycorrhizal (NMyc) and mycorrhizal (Myc) carob plants were subjected to three levels of phosphate fertilization, L1 (0 mg P kg(-1) soil), L2 (25 mg P kg(-1) soil) and L3 (100 mg P kg(-1) soil). Results showed that under L1 and L2 P-fertilization levels, arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis significantly improved growth and biomass production of carob plants. Moreover, mineral nutrient (P, K, Na and Ca) acquisition, photosynthetic activity (F-v/F-m), stomatal conductance, total chlorophyll content, and soluble sugar accumulation were also strongly improved in Myc plants in comparison with NMyc ones. Under L1 P-fertilization level, Myc plants showed strongly increased acid phosphatase activity in roots and in the rhizospheric soil than NMyc plants. Furthermore, Myc plants maintained high membrane integrity (over 80%) and low hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and malondialdehyde (MDA) contents, associated with increased activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), ascorbate peroxidase (APX), guaiacol peroxidase (G-POD), and catalase (CAT) compared to NMyc plants. However, high phosphorus input (L3) negatively affected root colonization and mycorrhizal plant performance. Thus, carob plants associated with Funneliformis mosseae performed best under phosphorus deficiency and were the least sensitive to the variations of phosphorus input levels.

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