Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24831020›Full record

SynthesisMycorrhiza2015

Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis alters stomatal conductance of host plants more under drought than under amply watered conditions: a meta-analysis.

Robert M Augé, Heather D Toler, Arnold M Saxton

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Mycorrhiza, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 135 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
135citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

135 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

75 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Robert M AugéDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 2431 Joe Johnson Drive, Knoxville, TN, 37996-4561, USA, auge@utk.edu.
Heather D Toler
Arnold M Saxton

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stomata regulate rates of carbon assimilation and water loss. Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) symbioses often modify stomatal behavior and therefore play pivotal roles in plant productivity. The size of the AM effect on stomatal conductance to water vapor (g s ) has varied widely, has not always been apparent, and is unpredictable. We conducted a meta-analysis of 460 studies to determine the size of the AM effect under ample watering and drought and to examine how experimental conditions have influenced the AM effect. Across all host and symbiont combinations under all soil moisture conditions, AM plants have shown 24 % higher g s than nonmycorrhizal (NM) controls. The promotion of g s has been over twice as great during moderate drought than under amply watered conditions. The AM influence on g s has been even more pronounced under severe drought, with over four times the promotion observed with ample water. Members of the Claroideoglomeraceae, Glomeraceae, and other AM families stimulated g s by about the same average amount. Colonization by native AM fungi has produced the largest promotion. Among single-AM symbionts, Glomus deserticola, Claroideoglomus etunicatum, and Funneliformis mosseae have had the largest average effects on g s across studies. Dicotyledonous hosts, especially legumes, have been slightly more responsive to AM symbiosis than monocotyledonous hosts, and C3 plants have shown over twice the AM-induced promotion of C4 plants. The extent of root colonization is important, with heavily colonized plants showing ×10 the g s promotion of lightly colonized plants. AM promotion of g s has been larger in growth chambers and in the field than in greenhouse studies, almost ×3 as large when plants were grown under high light than low light, and ×2.5 as large in purely mineral soils than in soils having an organic component. When AM plants have been compared with NM controls given NM pot culture, they have shown only half the promotion of g s as NM plants not given anything at inoculation to control for associated soil organisms. The AM effect has been much greater when AM plants were larger or had more phosphorus than NM controls. These findings should assist in further investigations of predictions and mechanisms of the AM influence on host g s .

Indexed as

SymbiosisDroughtsMycorrhizaePhosphorusPlant RootsPlant StomataWaterPhosphorusWater

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.