ArticlePloS one2019
Mycorrhizal response in crop versus wild plants.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mycelial dynamics in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.The New phytologist · 2026Review
- Comparative Study of Wild and CultivatedMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- What are the 100 most cited fungal genera?Studies in mycology · 2024Article
- Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi suppress ammonia-oxidizing bacteria but not archaea across agricultural soils.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Effects of Commercial Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Inoculants on Plant Productivity and Intra-Radical Colonization in Native Grassland: Unintentional De-Coupling of a Symbiosis?Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Genetic control of arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization by Rhizophagus intraradices in Helianthus annuus (L.).Mycorrhiza · 2021Article
- Toward a Symbiotic Perspective on Public Health: Recognizing the Ambivalence of Microbes in the Anthropocene.Microorganisms · 2020Article
- Article
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
We proposed a theoretical framework predicting mutualistic outcomes for the arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) symbiosis based on host provenance (crop versus wild). To test the framework, we grew two isolates of Rhizoglomus irregulare (commercial versus an isolate locally isolated), with five crop plants and five wild plants endemic to the region that co-occur with the locally sourced fungus. While inoculation with either isolate had no effect on plant biomass, it decreased leaf P content, particularly for wild plants. All plants associating with the commercial fungus had lower leaf P. Overall, our data shows that wild plants may be more sensitive to differences in mutualistic quality among fungal isolates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.