Effects of Long-Term Subcultured Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Red Pepper Plant Growth and Soil Glomalin Content

Figures & data

Table 1. Arbuscular mycorrhizal strains used in this study.

Strain name	Propagation technique	Storage period	Culture number	References
Claroideoglomus etunicatum	Monosporic culture	2013–2016	BEG247	Lee et al. [22]
Rhizophagus sp. RK4	Monosporic culture	2013–2016	KCTC18354P	Krishnamoorthy et al. [23]
Funneliformis mosseae	Single spore inoculation method	2013–2016	BEG12	Unpublished data
Gigaspora margarita S-23	Slide method	2013–2016	KCTC18540P	Selvakumar et al. [9]
Claroideoglomus lamellosum S-11	Slide method	2013–2016	KCTC18443P	Selvakumar et al. [9]

Figure 1. Mycorrhizal inoculation effect on red pepper plant growth. (A) Shoot dry weight; (B) Root dry weight; (C) Fruit dry weight; and (D) Number of fruits. Each value represents the mean of three replicates ± standard error. T1: Control; T2: C. etunicatum; T3: Rhizophagus sp.; T4: F. mosseae; T5: G. margarita; T6: C. lamellosum.

Figure 2. Mycorrhizal inoculation effect on spore production and glomalin content. (A) Spore count; (B) Mycorrhizal root colonization; (C) EE-GRSP content; and (D) TE-GRSP content. Each value represents the mean of three replicates ± standard error. T1: Control; T2: C. etunicatum; T3: Rhizophagus sp.; T4: F. mosseae; T5: G. margarita; T6: C. lamellosum.

Table 2. Inoculation effect of AMF strains on nutrient accumulation in red pepper shoot and root tissues.

			(mg/plant)
Plant	Treatments	T-N (%)	P	K	Ca	Mg
Shoot	T1	1.46 ± 0.23 a	09.39 ± 2.25 b	284.12 ± 69.83 a	39.27 ± 7.27 a	29.08 ± 5.72 a
	T2	1.39 ± 0.13 a	16.28 ± 1.97 ab	360.49 ± 11.21 a	50.17 ± 4.72 a	34.09 ± 2.79 a
	T3	1.51 ± 0.20 a	13.30 ± 3.91 ab	311.28 ± 101.08 a	38.44 ± 8.89 a	27.01 ± 5.86 a
	T4	1.56 ± 0.08 a	13.48 ± 2.27 ab	333.18 ± 19.63 a	42.58 ± 2.42 a	30.10 ± 1.29 a
	T5	1.12 ± 0.01 a	19.66 ± 3.54 a	376.06 ± 22.41 a	50.39 ± 3.04 a	37.07 ± 2.98 a
	T6	1.10 ± 0.02 a	15.64 ± 2.74 ab	356.00 ± 50.01 a	41.23 ± 5.42 a	29.83 ± 4.15 a
Root	T1	1.63 ± 0.19 a	1.99 ± 0.52 a	47.22 ± 5.25 a	07.66 ± 2.14 a	06.80 ± 1.13 a
	T2	1.56 ± 0.12 a	3.70 ± 0.15 a	51.64 ± 3.51 a	13.06 ± 1.71 a	13.03 ± 1.19 a
	T3	1.64 ± 0.13 a	2.84 ± 0.93 a	50.52 ± 17.7 a	09.97 ± 3.36 a	10.31 ± 3.64 a
	T4	1.38 ± 0.09 a	3.38 ± 0.29 a	59.01 ± 0.53 a	12.73 ± 1.29 a	12.53 ± 1.39 a
	T5	1.23 ± 0.09 a	4.06 ± 1.00 a	53.44 ± 3.25 a	15.12 ± 5.56 a	13.18 ± 4.10 a
	T6	1.25 ± 0.07 a	3.43 ± 0.92 a	66.16 ± 6.48 a	13.21 ± 2.67 a	12.43 ± 2.69 a

T1: Control; T2: C. etunicatum; T3: Rhizophagus sp.; T4: G. mosseae; T5: G. margarita; T6: C. lamellosum. Each value represents the mean of three replicates ± standard error. Each value in a column followed by the same letter was not significantly different at p ≤ .05.

Table 3. Relationship between soil properties and soil glomalin content according to Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis.

Properties	Av. P2O5	K	Ca	Mg	T-N	Spore count	Colonization	EE-GRSP	TE-GRSP
Av. P2O5	1
K	−.409	1
Ca	.632	−.549	1
Mg	−.410	.888*	−.582	1
T-N	−.591	−.281	−.507	−.109	1
Spore count	.217	−.512	.094	−.068	.396	1
Colonization	.234	−.729	−.029	−.441	.617	.812*	1
EE-GRSP	.852*	−.387	.872*	−.411	−.761	.084	−.065	1
TE-GRSP	.897*	−.554	.830*	−.583	−.633	.137	.123	.966**	1

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

Lee Y, Krishnamoorthy R, Selvakumar G, et al. Alleviation of salt stress in maize plant by co-inoculation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and Methylobacterium oryzae CBMB20. J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem. 2015;58:533–540.

 Google Scholar

Krishnamoorthy R, Kim K, Subramanian P, et al. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and associated bacteria isolated from salt-affected soil enhances the tolerance of maize to salinity in coastal reclamation soil. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2016;231:233–239.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Selvakumar G, Krishnamoorthy R, Kim K, et al. Propagation technique of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi isolated from coastal reclamation land. Eur J Soil Biol. 2016;74:39–44.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar