ArticleMycorrhiza2019
Comparative measurements of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal responses to agricultural management practices.
Article in Mycorrhiza, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alliances and competitions between nematodes and other micro-organisms occurring in the soil biosphere: a review.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- Cover Crops Modulate the Response of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi to Water Supply: A Field Study in Corn.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Growth-promoting bacteria and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi differentially benefit tomato and corn depending upon the supplied form of phosphorus.Mycorrhiza · 2020Article
- Forage Rotations Conserve Diversity of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Soil Fertility.Frontiers in microbiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi are considered to be a key group of soil organisms for assessments of soil biological properties and developing relationships among crop production management practices, soil properties, crop performance, and ecosystem services. In a field study of cover crop treatments established during the transition from small grains to corn (Zea mays L), we assessed multiple measures of AM fungal responses to the management treatments: soil propagule numbers, biomass via lipid biomarkers, and root colonization extent. Our objectives were to determine response variables that reliably distinguished cover crop treatments and formed consistent relationships with grain yield, plant biomass, and mineral nutrient concentrations of the following corn crop. The number of soil AM fungal propagules and amount of the NLFA biomarker C16:1cis11 measured on fall-collected soils most consistently and significantly responded to fall cover crop treatments. Neither of these measures of soil inoculum potential was strongly related to measures of crop performance. The PLFA biomarker C16:1cis11 was marginally responsive to cover crop but did not strongly relate to crop performance parameters. Corn root colonization by AM fungi was not significantly affected by cover crop treatment, but significant negative relationships were found between root colonization and grain N concentration and plant biomass at maturity. In contrast, a significant positive relationship between root colonization and plant N concentration at the 6-leaf stage was found. Understanding the relative effectiveness and limitations of AM fungal response variables will inform their application in field studies of agricultural management practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30868248What 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.