4.7 Article

Enhancement in growth and quality parameters of tea [Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze] through inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in an acid soil

期刊

BIOLOGY AND FERTILITY OF SOILS
卷 46, 期 5, 页码 427-433

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00374-010-0448-x

关键词

AMF; Tea; Growth; Quality parameters; Acid soil

资金

  1. Science and Society Division, Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, Government of India
  2. Department of Biotechnology
  3. Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study was undertaken to determine the effect of inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) from natural and cultivated tea rhizospheres (NTR and CTR, respectively) on growth as well as on quality parameters of tea [Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze]. Seeds (after germination) and cuttings were inoculated with AMF consortia from NTR and CTR in non-sterilized acid soil (pH 5.0). Seedlings and cuttings were grown under net-house conditions and the data on growth and quality parameters were recorded up to 2 years. Tea plants were found to be highly colonized by AMF (74-83%) after 1 year. The significant increase in most of the growth parameters (root/shoot length, dry weight; r/s ratio) was recorded in AMF-treated plants, which also showed better tea quality parameters than noninoculated plants. Maximum significant increases up to 31% and 100%, over control, were recorded in amino acids and total protein content, respectively. Similarly, maximum increase in total polyphenols (15%) and caffeine content (34%) over control was also significant. Enhanced sugar content (maximum 16% in total soluble sugars, maximum 45% in reducing sugars, and maximum 69% in non-reducing sugars) was recorded in AMF-inoculated plants. In most cases, better response was observed in tea plants inoculated with AMF consortia from NTR. These results indicate that growth and quality of tea can be improved by AMF inoculations in acid soils.

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

4.7
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