You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic. For video creation, please contact our Academic Video Service.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Mohamed Hijri
 -- 1550 2022-09-27 13:49:58 |
2 update references and layout
Rita Xu
 + 525 word(s) 2075 2022-09-28 03:02:46 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Academic Video Service to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Basiru, S.;  Hijri, M. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Inoculants. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27709 (accessed on 18 July 2025).
Basiru S,  Hijri M. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Inoculants. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27709. Accessed July 18, 2025.
Basiru, Sulaimon, Mohamed Hijri. "Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Inoculants" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27709 (accessed July 18, 2025).
Basiru, S., & Hijri, M. (2022, September 27). Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Inoculants. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27709
Basiru, Sulaimon and Mohamed Hijri. "Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Inoculants." Encyclopedia. Web. 27 September, 2022.
Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Inoculants
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/microorganisms10101897

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal (AMF) inoculants are sustainable biological materials that can provide several benefits to plants, especially in disturbed agroecosystems and in the context of phytomanagement interventions.

arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi symbiosis commercial inoculants community structure

1. Introduction

Mitigating the environmental impacts of intensive agriculture, such as greenhouse gas emission, eutrophication, the pollution of surface and underground water, global soil loss to salinity and compaction, loss of microbial diversity, etc., calls for the integration of multiple sustainable management approaches including the diversification of crop rotations, intercropping, integrated farm management, conservation, precision agriculture, and the ‘4R’ framework of nutrient management (meaning applying the right type and quantity of nutrient in right place and at the right time). Another important strategy that can help to reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture, restore soil health, and protect biodiversity is the introduction of beneficial microorganisms into agroecosystems [1][2].
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMFs) are essential soil microbial communities that form obligate symbiosis with 80% of terrestrial plants [3]. AMF promotes plant growth by facilitating nutrient acquisition through the extraradical mycelia that spread from the host’s roots into surrounding soils [4][5]. By increasing plant access to nutrients, AMF application can offset phosphorus fertilizer demand by ~50% [6]. A growing number of studies also indicate that the application of AMF can reduce nitrogen losses in the form of nitrous oxide emission and nitrate leaching [7][8][9][10]. AMF can also stimulate the production of phytohormones and secondary metabolites, that can improve plant productivity [11], crop quality [12][13], and build resilience against environmental stress such as salinity [14], drought [15][16], heat, and pathogens [17][18]. Thus, intervention with commercial AMF is tenable in soils with high P-fixing potential, anthropized sites that exhibit low diversity and richness of native AMF species, and arid and semi-arid areas [19][20][21][22][23][24].
The AMF inoculant market is burgeoning and gaining wide recognition, although commercial products are majorly based on a few AMF strains belonging to the Glomeraceae genera: Rhizophagus, Funneliformis, and Claroideoglomus strains [2]. AMF inoculants consisting of several AMF strains can produce additive or synergistic effects on target crops [25], however increasing the diversity of AMF in inoculants may fail to produce additional benefits if constituent strains are redundant i.e., performing similar functions [26]. Similarly, the concerted application of AMF with other bioinoculants such as growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) or nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and organic substances such as humic acid can produce greater plant response [27][28]; however, only a few commercial products are based on such complex formulation [2].
Despite the growing demand for biofertilizers, results from commercial AMF inoculants have been largely context-dependent, especially under field conditions, contrary to the common laboratory successes [29][30][31][32]. The inconsistent narrations from the research community regarding the reliability of AMF inoculation as a valid agricultural management technique [33] are generating low consumer confidence that is hindering large-scale adoption of the technology. Although, quantifiable or marketable gains (such as yield enhancement, nutrient replacement, watering costs, seedling growth, and nursery raising) are the mostly sought benefits of AMF, agricultural benefits of AMF extend beyond immediate monetary gains. The non-marketable benefits of AMF include the improvement of food and fiber quality; plant stress mitigation as well as ecosystem services, such as soil erosion control; the prevention of nutrient losses (nitrous oxide emission and N leaching); carbon sequestration; and landscape recreation [34][35]. Notwithstanding, to win growers’ confidence and market sustainability, investment in inoculant technology must pay off either in the short- or long-term.
Field success of commercial inoculants relies on the ability of the introduced strains to establish and persist at the target site for a desired or specified period. However, AMF establishment is complex and are often determined by the inherent features of the target agroecosystem. Unfortunately, most microbial inoculants are selected based on their expressed functional traits in a greenhouse, without proper consideration of the ecologically relevant traits that determine establishment and persistence under natural conditions [36]. While many cases of inoculation failures could be attributed to poor product quality stemming from the lack of regulatory or quality control frameworks that mandate best practices, resulting in a market flooded by substandard products [29][32][37], there is also lack of understanding of ecology and of the mode of action of inoculants [38]. Duell et al. [29] recently demonstrated that inoculants could decouple native plant symbiosis with indigenous strains in a natural ecosystem already containing a large diversity of AMF community, without conferring additional benefits. Thus, inoculation in such ecosystems with high mycorrhizal potential may prove unproductive.
Therefore, understanding the factors that influence the establishment and persistence of AMF inoculants will inform decisions, as well as the management practices necessary, to ensure inoculation success [39]. Tracing the survival and persistence of the introduced strains will help identify which AMF strains adapt well to the local conditions and induce the observed plant response following long-term persistence and will help determine whether another inoculation exercise is necessary. Moreover, monitoring the downstream impacts of the introduced inoculant [40] is necessary to prevent the intentional propagation of detrimental or ineffective strains and the elimination of keystone taxa [41].

2. Establishment and Persistence of Introduced AMF in Field

2.1. Establishment

The influence of AMF on plants and microbial communities relies both on the successful colonization of plant roots and on the maintenance of live propagules that can form mycorrhizal association for a given period after their application [42]. However, the establishment success of introduced AMF in the field is context-specific, varying according to the type and composition of the inoculant, as well as the physical and biotic conditions of the target field [31]. The establishment of AMF is largely successful regardless of soil type, nutrient concentration, or the composition of the indigenous AMF communities (Table 1). In other contexts, AMF may fail to establish at the target site due various factors. For example, Rhizophagus irregularis (DAOM197198), often regarded as a generalist AMF with a cosmopolitan distribution, did not influence grapevine growth in a five-year trail [43][44]. Renault et al., 2020 [45] also observed no difference in root colonization between control and non-inoculated plots of corn soybean, or in wheat treated with same isolate of R. irregularis. In composite trials, where AMF inoculants were applied in different fields, establishment was successful at one site and failed at the other [46][47].
AMF Name, Isolate (Brand, Manufacturer) Location of Trial Soil Type Climate Crop Persistence Tracking Period Change in Abundance of Introduced AMF over Time References
Funneliformis mossaeae BEG12 and AZ225C, Rhizophagus irregularis BEG141 Manciano (Grosseto) Italy Haplic Calcisol or Inceptisol Humid Mediterranean Medicago sativa L. 2 years F. mosseae AZ225C was most persistent, followed by BEG12 and BEG141. Abundance of local F. mosseae cluster was reduced, while the abundance of native R. irregularis increased. [45]
Rhizophagus Irregularis, DAOM 197198 (Myke Pro, Premier Tech) Canada (Swift Current) Brown Chernozem Semi-arid Pea-wheat 2 years, 5 months Inoculant decreased from 27% in first season to 15% in years two and three. [41]
Canada (Outlook) Dark Brown Chernozem Semi-arid   2 years, 5 months Introduced AMF decreased from 17% in year one to 4% in years two and three.
Canada (Scott) Chernozem Sub-humid   3 months Relative abundance of introduced AMF was 33% but detection failed in subsequent years.
Canada (Melfort) Black Chernozem Sub-humid   1 year, 3 months AMF detected in year one with 10% abundance and 4% in year two but declined completely in year three.
Rhizophagus irregulare, DAOM 197198 (Myke Pro GR, Premier Tech) Swift Current, Saskatchewan _ _ Lentil Lens culinaris, Linum usitatissimum (Flax var. Bethune) rotation
inoculation year 1 only		 _ Inoculation did not affect abundance of target AMF in roots. [46]
Beaverlodge, Alberta _ _ Pisum sativum, Linum usitatissimum (Flax var. Bethune) _ Inoculation did not affect abundance of target AMF in roots.
Melfort, Saskatchewan _ _   _ Abundance of introduced isolate was less in inoculated site than control
STR Saskatchewan _ _   2 years Abundance of introduced isolate was higher in inoculated plots in year one, but did not differ in year two.
Rhizophagus Irregularis IR27 Senegal Tropical ferruginous Semi-arid Jujube (Ziziphus mauritiana lam., Tasset and Gola) 1 years, 5 months Abundance of R. irregularis was low (15% after 18 months). [47]
Funneliformis Mosseae AZ225C and IMA1 Pisa, Italy Sandy loam Mediterranea climate M. sativa 2 years 2 years, relative proportion of F. mosseae decreased in favor of native species, abundance of isolate AZ225C dropped from 100% to 16.3%, while isolate IMA1 survived only three months. [48]
Glomus sp., G. intraradices and a mixture of both Vicente Banes, Molina de Segura, Southeastern Spain) Typic Torriorthent (silty clay) Semi-arid Mediteeranean climate O. europaea 1 year, 2 months Abundance varied by AMF species: Glomus sp.: 20%, G. intraradices: 48.2%, and mixed (G. intraradices: 14%, Glomus sp.: 39.7%). [49]
G. intraradices IMA6 and F. mosseae AZ 225C, and mixture of both Italy   Mediterranean climate Artichoke (Cynara cardunculus L. var. scolymus F.) 3 months Inoculation increased the abundance of Glomus OTUs in inoculated plants compared to control. [12]
Gigaspora margarita CK (cerakinkong, Central glass Co., Tokyo, Japan) Mizunashi River, Mt Fugendake, Nagasaki Prefecture, Japan Reforested soil   Eragrosis curvula (weeping love grass) and Miscanthus sinensis (Japanese Pampas grass) 4 years G. margariata isolate CK was detected in rhizosphere and root of E. curvula. [50]
Funneliformis (syn. Glomus) mosseae BEG12, 167 G. intraradices BEG 141 (IBG), G. eutenicatum BEG 168, (Endol, Biorize) Daxing, Hebei Province, China -   Sweet potato, (Ipomoea batatas L.) 3 months Contaminating AMF, G eutenicatum had longer persistence than G. mosseae, the establishment of which was not successful in year 2; similarly, low amounts of F. mosseae BEG 167 were detected compared to contaminating G. eutenicatum. [51]
R. irregularis GEG140,
F. mosseae BEG95, C. claroideum BEG96, (Symbiom)		 Coal mine spoil bank, Mekur, North Bohemia, Czech Republic _ _ Phalaris arundinacea 3 years Introduced AMF persisted and co-existed with native strains. [52]
Surprisingly, there seems to be greater discrepancies among commercial and laboratory inoculants tested in the same field. In 2017, Berruti et al. [48] reported that a commercial inoculant failed to establish in the field, while other studies obtained inconsistent results, where some commercial inoculants survived better under greenhouse conditions [30][31][32]. A recent global evaluation of commercial AMF inoculants in greenhouse and field conditions demonstrated that only 4 out of 28 AMF inoculants were successfully established in a greenhouse experiment, and only one successfully influenced plant performance in the field, whereas the inoculum obtained from the laboratory established successfully in both ecosystems [32].

2.2. Persistence

Most studies indicate that AMF could survive for a long period after the first inoculation. More specifically, introduced AMF could survive for relatively few months after inoculation to several years (Table 1); however, no study has monitored the persistence of AMF in the field beyond four years, according to the information available while gathering data for this study. The survival limit, as well as the abundance of the introduce species, is majorly affected by the type of AMF as well as the biotic and abiotic conditions of the target sites. For example, out of the two non-native Funneliformis mosseae isolates—AZ2256C and IMA1, which originated from the USA and the UK, respectively—only the former was detected two years after inoculation, but in lower proportions compared to the native R. irregularis and R. intraradices, despite early establishment success and the stimulatory effects of both strains on the roots of Medicago sativa [49]. In a recent study, Pellegrino et al. [50] also reported that although the AMF strains F. mossaeae BEG12 and AZ225C were detected in alfalfa roots two years post-treatment, the AZ225C strains had longer persistence.
Does persisting inoculant consistently improve plant growth, as in the initial stage of its introduction? Results from a 2012 study by Pellegrino et al. [51] suggest that persistent AMF could sustain yields two years after inoculation. A recent study by Pellegrino et al. [50] also indicated that AMF could sustain positive effects on the host crop several months after inoculation, whereby both F. mossaeae BEG12 and AZ225C enhanced alfalfa yield, nutrients, and fatty acid content. Similar findings were reported by Thioye et al. [52] where the growth-promoting effects of R. irregularis IR27 on Ziziphus mauritiana Lam continued 18 months after planting. However, Farmer et al. [53] and Alguacil et al. [54] could not correlate the persistence of inoculants with plant growth, even though inoculation increased plant growth in both studies.
Moreover, most studies reported a decline in the abundance of the persistent strains over time due to competition and suppression by native communities. For example, R. irregularis MUCL 41833 DNA was detected at a concentration 100 to 1000 times lower than native R. irregularis strains in three potato cultivars grown in the field in Belgium [55]. In a recent trial, the levels of the AMF abundance of inoculates introduced in four Canadian agricultural fields varied between 3 and 27 months [41]. Rhizophagus irregularis IR27 represented 11 to 15% of the Rhizophagus genus in Ziziphus mauritiana roots after 13 and 18 months [56]. A low abundance of introduced AMF compared to native strains indicates that exotic AMF can co-exist with native strains without posing a negative threat to local biodiversity. Lastly, the results obtained by Kokkoris et al., 2019 [57] also demonstrated that the establishment and persistence of AMF was site-dependent and not related to crop management.

References

  1. Basiru, S.; Hijri, M. Does Commercial Inoculation Promote Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Invasion? Microorganisms 2022, 10, 404.
  2. Basiru, S.; Mwanza, H.P.; Hijri, M. Analysis of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Inoculant Benchmarks. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 81.
  3. Smith, S.; Read, D. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008.
  4. Wang, X.-X.; Li, H.; Chu, Q.; Feng, G.; Kuyper, T.W.; Rengel, Z. Mycorrhizal impacts on root trait plasticity of six maize varieties along a phosphorus supply gradient. Plant Soil 2020, 448, 71–86.
  5. Pepe, A.; Giovannetti, M.; Sbrana, C. Lifespan and functionality of mycorrhizal fungal mycelium are uncoupled from host plant lifespan. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 10235.
  6. Begum, N.; Qin, C.; Ahanger, M.A.; Raza, S.; Khan, M.I.; Ashraf, M.; Ahmed, N.; Zhang, L. Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Plant Growth Regulation: Implications in Abiotic Stress Tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1068.
  7. Gui, H.; Gao, Y.; Wang, Z.; Shi, L.; Yan, K.; Xu, J. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi potentially regulate N2O emissions from agricultural soils via altered expression of denitrification genes. Sci. Total Env. 2021, 774, 145133.
  8. Storer, K.; Coggan, A.; Ineson, P.; Hodge, A.J.N.P. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi reduce nitrous oxide emissions from N2O hotspots. New Phytol. 2018, 220, 1285–1295.
  9. Teutscherova, N.; Vazquez, E.; Arango, J.; Arevalo, A.; Benito, M.; Pulleman, M. Native arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi increase the abundance of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria, but suppress nitrous oxide emissions shortly after urea application. Geoderma 2019, 338, 493–501.
  10. Shen, Y.; Zhu, B. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi reduce soil nitrous oxide emission. Geoderma 2021, 402, 115179.
  11. Hijri, M. Analysis of a large dataset of mycorrhiza inoculation field trials on potato shows highly significant increases in yield. Mycorrhiza 2016, 26, 209–214.
  12. Ceccarelli, N.; Curadi, M.; Martelloni, L.; Sbrana, C.; Picciarelli, P.; Giovannetti, M. Mycorrhizal colonization impacts on phenolic content and antioxidant properties of artichoke leaves and flower heads two years after field transplant. Plant Soil 2010, 335, 311–323.
  13. El-Sawah, A.; El-Keblawy, A.; Ali, D.; Ibrahim, H.; El-Sheikh, M.; Sharma, A.; Alhaj Hamoud, Y.; Shaghaleh, H.; Brestic, M.; Skalicky, M.; et al. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Enhance Soil Key Enzymes, Plant Growth, Seed Yield, and Qualitative Attributes of Guar. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1033.
  14. Chandrasekaran, M.; Kim, K.; Krishnamoorthy, R.; Walitang, D.; Sundaram, S.; Joe, M.M.; Selvakumar, G.; Hu, S.; Oh, S.H.; Sa, T. Mycorrhizal Symbiotic Efficiency on C3 and C4 Plants under Salinity Stress—A Meta-Analysis. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1246.
  15. Begum, N.; Ahanger, M.A.; Su, Y.; Lei, Y.; Mustafa, N.S.A.; Ahmad, P.; Zhang, L. Improved Drought Tolerance by AMF Inoculation in Maize (Zea mays) Involves Physiological and Biochemical Implications. Plants 2019, 8, 579.
  16. Begum, N.; Ahanger, M.A.; Zhang, L. AMF inoculation and phosphorus supplementation alleviates drought induced growth and photosynthetic decline in Nicotiana tabacum by up-regulating antioxidant metabolism and osmolyte accumulation. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2020, 176, 104088.
  17. Ceustermans, A.; Van Hemelrijck, W.; Van Campenhout, J.; Bylemans, D. Effect of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Pratylenchus penetrans Infestation in Apple Seedlings under Greenhouse Conditions. Pathogens 2018, 7, 76.
  18. Wang, L.; Wang, X.; Gao, F.; Lv, C.; Li, L.; Han, T.; Chen, F. AMF Inoculation Can Enhance Yield of Transgenic Bt Maize and Its Control Efficiency Against Mythimna separata Especially Under Elevated CO2. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 655060.
  19. Ceballos, I.; Ruiz, M.; Fernández, C.; Peña, R.; Rodríguez, A.; Sanders, I.R. The In Vitro Mass-Produced Model Mycorrhizal Fungus, Rhizophagus irregularis, Significantly Increases Yields of the Globally Important Food Security Crop Cassava. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e70633.
  20. Säle, V.; Aguilera, P.; Laczko, E.; Mäder, P.; Berner, A.; Zihlmann, U.; van der Heijden, M.G.A.; Oehl, F. Impact of conservation tillage and organic farming on the diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 84, 38–52.
  21. Oehl, F.; Sieverding, E.; Ineichen, K.; Ris, E.A.; Boller, T.; Wiemken, A. Community structure of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi at different soil depths in extensively and intensively managed agroecosystems. New Phytol. 2004, 165, 273–283.
  22. Lang, M.; Zhang, C.; Su, W.; Chen, X.; Zou, C.; Chen, X. Long-term P fertilization significantly altered the diversity, composition and mycorrhizal traits of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities in a wheat-maize rotation. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 170, 104261.
  23. Van der Heyde, M.; Ohsowski, B.; Abbott, L.K.; Hart, M. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus responses to disturbance are context-dependent. Mycorrhiza 2017, 27, 431–440.
  24. Oehl, F.; Laczko, E.; Oberholzer, H.-R.; Jansa, J.; Egli, S. Diversity and biogeography of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in agricultural soils. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2017, 53, 777–797.
  25. Jansa, J.; Smith, F.A.; Smith, S.E. Are there benefits of simultaneous root colonization by different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi? New Phytol. 2008, 177, 779–789.
  26. Gosling, P.; Jones, J.; Bending, G.D. Evidence for functional redundancy in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and implications for agroecosystem management. Mycorrhiza 2016, 26, 77–83.
  27. Gao, C.; El-Sawah, A.M.; Ali, D.F.I.; Alhaj Hamoud, Y.; Shaghaleh, H.; Sheteiwy, M.S. The Integration of Bio and Organic Fertilizers Improve Plant Growth, Grain Yield, Quality and Metabolism of Hybrid Maize (Zea mays L.). Agronomy 2020, 10, 319.
  28. Sheteiwy, M.S.; Ali, D.F.I.; Xiong, Y.C.; Brestic, M.; Skalicky, M.; Hamoud, Y.A.; Ulhassan, Z.; Shaghaleh, H.; AbdElgawad, H.; Farooq, M.; et al. Physiological and biochemical responses of soybean plants inoculated with Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and Bradyrhizobium under drought stress. BMC Plant Biol. 2021, 21, 195.
  29. Duell, E.B.; Cobb, A.B.; Wilson, G.W.T. Effects of Commercial Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Inoculants on Plant Productivity and Intra-Radical Colonization in Native Grassland: Unintentional De-Coupling of a Symbiosis? Plants 2022, 11, 2276.
  30. Faye, A.; Dalpé, Y.; Ndung’u-Magiroi, K.; Jefwa, J.; Ndoye, I.; Diouf, M.; Lesueur, D. Evaluation of commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculants. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2013, 93, 1201–1208.
  31. Faye, A.; Stewart, Z.P.; Ndung’u-Magiroi, K.; Diouf, M.; Ndoye, I.; Diop, T.; Dalpé, Y.; Prasad, P.V.V.; Lesueur, D. Testing of commercial inoculants to enhance P Uptake and grain yield of promiscuous soybean in Kenya. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3803.
  32. Salomon, M.J.; Demarmels, R.; Watts-Williams, S.J.; McLaughlin, M.J.; Kafle, A.; Ketelsen, C.; Soupir, A.; Bücking, H.; Cavagnaro, T.R.; van der Heijden, M.G.A. Global evaluation of commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculants under greenhouse and field conditions. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 169, 104225.
  33. Ryan, M.H.; Graham, J.H. Little evidence that farmers should consider abundance or diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi when managing crops. New Phytol. 2018, 220, 1092–1107.
  34. Gupta, M.M.; Abbott, L.K. Exploring economic assessment of the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. Symbiosis 2020, 83, 143–152.
  35. Rillig, M.C.; Aguilar-Trigueros, C.A.; Camenzind, T.; Cavagnaro, T.R.; Degrune, F.; Hohmann, P.; Lammel, D.R.; Mansour, I.; Roy, J.; van der Heijden, M.G.A.; et al. Why farmers should manage the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. New Phytol. 2019, 222, 1171–1175.
  36. Kaminsky, L.M.; Trexler, R.V.; Malik, R.J.; Hockett, K.L.; Bell, T.H. The Inherent Conflicts in Developing Soil Microbial Inoculants. Trends Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 140–151.
  37. Salomon, M.J.; Watts-Williams, S.J.; McLaughlin, M.J.; Bucking, H.; Singh, B.K.; Hutter, I.; Schneider, C.; Martin, F.M.; Vosatka, M.; Guo, L.; et al. Establishing a quality management framework for commercial inoculants containing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. iScience 2022, 25, 104636.
  38. O’Callaghan, M.; Ballard, R.A.; Wright, D. Soil microbial inoculants for sustainable agriculture: Limitations and opportunities. Soil Use Manag. 2022, 38, 1340–1369.
  39. Gómez-Godínez, L.J.; Martínez-Romero, E.; Banuelos, J.; Arteaga-Garibay, R.I. Tools and challenges to exploit microbial communities in agriculture. Curr. Res. Microb. Sci. 2021, 2, 100062.
  40. Mummey, D.L.; Antunes, P.M.; Rillig, M.C. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi pre-inoculant identity determines community composition in roots. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009, 41, 1173–1179.
  41. Islam, M.N.; Germida, J.J.; Walley, F.L. Survival of a commercial AM fungal inoculant and its impact on indigenous AM fungal communities in field soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 166, 103979.
  42. Kinnunen, M.; Dechesne, A.; Proctor, C.; Hammes, F.; Johnson, D.; Quintela-Baluja, M.; Graham, D.; Daffonchio, D.; Fodelianakis, S.; Hahn, N.; et al. A conceptual framework for invasion in microbial communities. ISME J. 2016, 10, 2773–2775.
  43. Thomsen, C.N. Establishment, Persistence, and Spread of a Commercial Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Inoculant in Viticulture. Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2018.
  44. Thomsen, C.; Loverock, L.; Kokkoris, V.; Holland, T.; Bowen, P.A.; Hart, M. Commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal inoculant failed to establish in a vineyard despite priority advantage. PeerJ 2021, 9, e11119.
  45. Renaut, S.; Daoud, R.; Masse, J.; Vialle, A.; Hijri, M. Inoculation with Rhizophagus Irregularis Does Not Alter Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Community Structure within the Roots of Corn, Wheat, and Soybean Crops. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 83.
  46. Li, Y.; Gan, Y.; Lupwayi, N.; Hamel, C. Influence of introduced arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and phosphorus sources on plant traits, soil properties, and rhizosphere microbial communities in organic legume-flax rotation. Plant Soil 2019, 443, 87–106.
  47. Li, Y.; Laterrière, M.; Lay, C.-Y.; Klabi, R.; Masse, J.; St-Arnaud, M.; Yergeau, É.; Lupwayi, N.Z.; Gan, Y.; Hamel, C. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi inoculation and crop sequence on root-associated microbiome, crop productivity and nutrient uptake in wheat-based and flax-based cropping systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 168, 104136.
  48. Berruti, A.; Lumini, E.; Bianciotto, V. AMF components from a microbial inoculum fail to colonize roots and lack soil persistence in an arable maize field. Symbiosis 2017, 72, 73–80.
  49. Pellegrino, E.; Turrini, A.; Gamper, H.A.; Cafa, G.; Bonari, E.; Young, J.P.W.; Giovannetti, M. Establishment, persistence and effectiveness of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal inoculants in the field revealed using molecular genetic tracing and measurement of yield components. New Phytol. 2012, 194, 810–822.
  50. Pellegrino, E.; Nuti, M.; Ercoli, L. Multiple Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Consortia Enhance Yield and Fatty Acids of Medicago sativa: A Two-Year Field Study on Agronomic Traits and Tracing of Fungal Persistence. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 814401.
  51. Pellegrino, E.; Bedini, S.; Avio, L.; Bonari, E.; Giovannetti, M. Field inoculation effectiveness of native and exotic arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a Mediterranean agricultural soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011, 43, 367–376.
  52. Thioye, B.; Sanguin, H.; Kane, A.; Ndiaye, C.; Fall, D.; Sanogo, D.; Duponnois, R.; de Faria, S.M.; Sylla, S.N.; Bâ, A. Mycorrhizal inoculation increases fruit production without disturbance of native arbuscular mycorrhizal community in jujube tree orchards (Senegal). Symbiosis 2021, 83, 361–372.
  53. Farmer, M.J.; Li, X.; Feng, G.; Zhao, B.; Chatagnier, O.; Gianinazzi, S.; Gianinazzi-Pearson, V.; van Tuinen, D. Molecular monitoring of field-inoculated AMF to evaluate persistence in sweet potato crops in China. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2007, 35, 599–609.
  54. Alguacil Mdel, M.; Torrecillas, E.; Kohler, J.; Roldán, A. A molecular approach to ascertain the success of “in situ” AM fungi inoculation in the revegetation of a semiarid, degraded land. Sci Total Env. 2011, 409, 2874–2880.
  55. Buysens, C.; Alaux, P.L.; César, V.; Huret, S.; Declerck, S.; Cranenbrouck, S. Tracing native and inoculated Rhizophagus irregularis in three potato cultivars (Charlotte, Nicola and Bintje) grown under field conditions. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 115, 1–9.
  56. Thioye, B.; van Tuinen, D.; Kane, A.; de Faria, S.M.; Ndiaye, C.; Duponnois, R.; Sylla, S.N.; Ba, A.M. Tracing Rhizophagus irregularis isolate IR27 in Ziziphus mauritiana roots under field conditions. Mycorrhiza 2019, 29, 77–83.
  57. Kokkoris, V.; Li, Y.; Hamel, C.; Hanson, K.; Hart, M. Site specificity in establishment of a commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal inoculant. Sci Total Env. 2019, 660, 1135–1143.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Agronomy
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Sulaimon Basiru
,
Mohamed Hijri
View Times: 941
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 28 Sep 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Academic Video Service
    Feedback