ArticleMycorrhiza2025
Drink quickly. Mycorrhizal roots deplete water faster from wet soil.
Article in Mycorrhiza, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The aim of the experiment was to identify whether mycorrhizal (M) and non-mycorrhizal (NM) plants differed in their rates of water depletion from soil, which was initially very wet but became moderately dry over time. In a greenhouse pot experiment, dwarf-tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum ‘Micro Tom’) were grown in a sterilized substrate. The M plants were inoculated with an isolate of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Funneliformis mosseae ‘BEG95’. Moisture meters permanently installed in each pot recorded soil gravimetric water content (GWC) and allowed controlling soil moisture by pot-specific watering. Water depletion was quantified from these GWC data. We found that immediately after water application calculated to establish 17% GWC in each pot, M plants depleted water faster than did their NM counterparts, resulting in less residual substrate water in M as compared to NM pots. The difference in residual substrate GWC remained significant throughout the entire monitoring period of 44 h, with the mean value of the difference being 0.62% of GWC. The plants in the two treatments differed neither in shoot biomass nor leaf area nor root biomass. The M plants, however, had significantly shorter and thicker roots, whereas NM plants had longer, thinner roots. In line with the expectation that thicker roots exhibit higher hydraulic conductivity, we attribute the faster water depletion in M pots to enhanced ability of mycorrhizal roots to exploit wet substrates, where water availability did not constrain uptake. At later stages, both M and NM plants depleted water at similar rates.
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.