Plant Physiol.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Plant Physiology 73:969-972 (1983)
© 1983 American Society of Plant Biologists

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bethlenfalvay, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Pacovsky, R. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bethlenfalvay, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Pacovsky, R. S.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Bethlenfalvay, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Pacovsky, R. S.
Articles

Light Effects in Mycorrhizal Soybeans

Gabor J. Bethlenfalvay and Raymond S. Pacovsky

United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Western Regional Research Center, Berkeley, California 94710

Soybean (Glycine max. L. Merr.) plants were grown in an experiment with a 3 x 3 factorial design using different levels of light (170, 350, and 700 µE·m–2·s–1) and P as factors. Plants were grown in a greenhouse in pot cultures using a soil low in plant-available P under three P regimes: no additional P, P added as KH2PO4, or P uptake enhanced by colonization of the host plant with the vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) fungus Glomus fasciculatum (Thaxt. sensu Gerd.) Gerd. and Trappe. Development of the VAM fungal endophyte and of plants under all three P regimes was depressed by limiting light. However, the growth response of VAM plants to increasing light relative to non-VAM plants in the absence of additional P increased while the response relative to non-VAM plants with additional P decreased slightly. The highly significant interaction between the factors (P < 0.001) of the experiment was due to differences in the magnitude and direction of simple effects of the factors. The implications of these differences in terms of source-sink relationships of the symbionts and the value of different non-VAM controls in interpreting VAM effects are discussed.





This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Bot.Home page
H. A. Violi, J. A. Menge, and R. J. Beaver
Chaetomium elatum (Kunze: Chaetomiaceae) as a root-colonizing fungus in avocado: is it a mutualist, cheater, commensalistic associate, or pathogen?
Am. J. Botany, April 1, 2007; 94(4): 690 - 700.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ASPB Publications PLANT PHYSIOLOGY THE PLANT CELL
Copyright © 1983 by the American Society of Plant Biologists