ArticleMycorrhiza2015
Differential effects of ephemeral colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in two Cuscuta species with different ecology.
Article in Mycorrhiza, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inflorescences of Cuscuta (Convolvulaceae): Diversity, evolution and relationships with breeding systems and fruit dehiscence modes.PloS one · 2023Article
- Responses of Rhizospheric Microbial Communities of Native and Alien Plant Species to Cuscuta Parasitism.Microbial ecology · 2020Article
- Cuscuta seeds: Diversity and evolution, value for systematics/identification and exploration of allometric relationships.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Seedlings of parasitic Cuscuta species are autotrophic but can survive only a short period of time, during which they must locate and attach to a suitable host. They have an ephemeral root-like organ considered not a "true" root by most studies. In the present study, two species with contrasting ecology were examined: Cuscuta gronovii, a North American riparian species, and Cuscuta campestris, an invasive dodder that thrives in disturbed habitats. The morphology, structure, and absorptive capability of their root-like organ were compared, their potential for colonization by two species of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) was assessed, and the effect of the AMF on seedling growth and survival was determined. The root of both species absorbed water and interacted with AMF, but the two species exhibited dissimilar growth and survival patterns depending on the colonization level of their seedlings. The extensively colonized seedlings of C. gronovii grew more and survived longer than non-colonized seedlings. In contrast, the scarce colonization of C. campestris seedlings did not increase their growth or longevity. The differential growth responses of the AMF-colonized and non-colonized Cuscuta species suggest a mycorrhizal relationship and reflect their ecology. While C. gronovii roots have retained a higher ability to interact with AMF and are likely to take advantage of fungal communities in riparian habitats, the invasive C. campestris has largely lost this ability possibly as an adaptation to disturbed ecosystems. These results indicate that dodders have a true root, even if much reduced and ephemeral, that can interact with AMF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25720736What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.