Search
2021 Volume 1
Article Contents
REVIEW   Open Access    

Arbuscular Mycorrhiza and Sustainable Agriculture

More Information
  • Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) provide benefits to most crop species via enhanced nutrient uptake, increased drought and abiotic stress resistance, and reduced effects of pathogens and pests. Much remains unclear regarding the specific mechanisms influencing these processes, and the critical roles of AMF are often overlooked in planning agroecological systems. There is growing consensus, however, around the important roles AMF play in improving plant resilience and crop yield while also enhancing the functioning of soil microbial communities. Heterogeneous practices across all scales complicate the successful integration of AMF in agroecological systems. AMF symbioses with crops are passive, or stimulated by incorporation of crop wastes in soil, soil inoculation with AMF spores, or the planting inoculated of seeds. Here we suggest that AMF can have highest beneficial impacts in areas with low levels of agrochemical inputs. We argue that areas with intensive agrochemical inputs can also be made more sustainable with AMF enhancements.
  • 加载中
  • [1]

    Smith SE, Read DJ. 2008. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. 3rd Edition. New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-370526-6.X5001-6

    [2]

    Johnson NC, Angelard C, Sanders IR, Kiers ET. 2013. Predicting community and ecosystem outcomes of mycorrhizal responses to global change. Ecol. Lett. 16:140−53

    doi: 10.1111/ele.12085

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [3]

    Cavagnaro TR, Bender SF, Asghari HR, van der Heijden MGA. 2015. The role of arbuscular mycorrhizas in reducing soil nutrient loss. Trends Plant Sci. 20:283−90

    doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2015.03.004

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [4]

    Zhu X, Song F, Liu S, Liu F. 2016. Arbuscular mycorrhiza improve growth, nitrogen uptake, and nitrogen use efficiency in wheat grown under elevated CO2. Mycorrhiza 26:133−40

    doi: 10.1007/s00572-015-0654-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [5]

    Chen M, Arato M, Borghi L, Nouri E, Reinhardt D. 2018. Beneficial services of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi – from ecology to application. Front. Plant Sci. 9:1270

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01270

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [6]

    Bowles TM, Jackson LE, Loeher M, Cavagnaro TR. 2016. Ecological intensification and arbuscular mycorrhizas: a meta-analysis of tillage and cover crop effects. J. Appl. Ecol. 54:1785−93

    doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12815

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [7]

    Santander C, Aroca R, Ruiz-Lozano JM, Olave J, Cartes P, et al. 2017. Arbuscular mycorrhiza effects on plant performance under osmotic stress. Mycorrhiza 27:639−57

    doi: 10.1007/s00572-017-0784-x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [8]

    Pirzad A, Mohammadzadeh S. 2018. Water use efficiency of three mycorrhizal Lamiaceae species (Lavandula officinalis, Rosmarinus officinalis and Thymus vulgaris). Agric. Water Manage. 204:1−10

    doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.03.020

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [9]

    Seguel A, Cumming JR, Klugh-Stewart K, Cornejo P, Borie F. 2013. The role of arbuscular mycorrhizas in decreasing aluminium phytotoxicity in acidic soils: a review. Mycorrhiza 23:167−83

    doi: 10.1007/s00572-013-0479-x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [10]

    Lenoir I, Fontaine J, Lounès-Hadj Sahraoui A. 2016. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal responses to abiotic stresses: A review. Phytochemistry 123:4−15

    doi: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2016.01.002

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [11]

    Singh SP, Singh MK. 2019. Mycorrhiza in Sustainable Crop Production. In Agronomic Crops, ed. Hasanuzzaman M. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. pp. 461−83 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9783-8_22

    [12]

    Rinaudo V, Bàrberi P, Giovannetti M, van der Heijden MGA. 2010. Mycorrhizal fungi suppress aggressive agricultural weeds. Plant Soil 333:7−20

    doi: 10.1007/s11104-009-0202-z

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13]

    Veiga RSL, Jansa J, Frossard E, van der Heijden MGA. 2011. Can arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi reduce the growth of agricultural weeds? PLoS ONE 6(12):e27825

    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027825

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [14]

    Daisog H, Sbrana C, Cristani C, Moonen AC, Giovannetti M, et al. 2012. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi shift competitive relationships among crop and weed species. Plant Soil 353:395−408

    doi: 10.1007/s11104-011-1040-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [15]

    Qiao X, Bei S, Li H, Christie P, Zhang F, et al. 2016. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi contribute to overyielding by enhancing crop biomass while suppressing weed biomass in intercropping systems. Plant Soil 406:173−85

    doi: 10.1007/s11104-016-2863-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [16]

    Johnson N, Gehring C, Jansa J. 2017. Mycorrhizal mediation of soil. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2015-0-01928-1

    [17]

    Verbruggen E, Jansa J, Hammer EC, Rillig MC. 2016. Do arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi stabilize litter-derived carbon in soil? J. Ecol. 104:261−69

    doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12496

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [18]

    Rillig MC, Mummey DL. 2006. Mycorrhizas and soil structure. New Phytol. 171:41−53

    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01750.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [19]

    Zhang S, Yu J, Wang S, Singh RP, Fu D. 2019. Nitrogen fertilization altered arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi abundance and soil erosion of paddy fields in the Taihu Lake region of China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26:27987−98

    doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-06005-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [20]

    Köhl L, van der Heijden MGA. 2016. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal species differ in their effect on nutrient leaching. Soil Biol. Biochem. 94:191−9

    doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.11.019

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [21]

    Machado AAS, Valyi K, Rillig MC. 2017. Potential environmental impacts of an “Underground Revolution”: A response to Bender et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32:8−10

    doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.10.009

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [22]

    Storer K, Coggan A, Ineson P, Hodge A. 2018. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi reduce nitrous oxide emissions from N2O hotspots. New Phytol. 220:1285−95

    doi: 10.1111/nph.14931

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [23]

    Maffei G, Miozzi L, Fiorilli V, Novero M, Lanfranco L, et al. 2014. The arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis attenuates symptom severity and reduces virus concentration in tomato infected by Tomato yellow leaf curl Sardinia virus (TYLCSV). Mycorrhiza 24:179−86

    doi: 10.1007/s00572-013-0527-6

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [24]

    Mora-Romero GA, Cervantes-Gámez RG, Galindo-Flores H, González-Ortíz MA, Félix-Gastélum R, et al. 2015. Mycorrhiza-induced protection against pathogens is both genotype-specific and graft-transmissible. Symbiosis 66:55−64

    doi: 10.1007/s13199-015-0334-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [25]

    Nair A, Kolet SP, Thulasiram HV, Bhargava S. 2015. Systemic jasmonic acid modulation in mycorrhizal tomato plants and its role in induced resistance against Alternaria alternata. Plant Biol. 17:625−31

    doi: 10.1111/plb.12277

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [26]

    Ren L, Zhang N, Wu P, Huo H, Xu G, et al. 2015. Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization alleviates Fusarium wilt in watermelon and modulates the composition of root exudates. Plant Growth Regul. 77:77−85

    doi: 10.1007/s10725-015-0038-x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [27]

    Song Y, Chen D, Lu K, Sun Z, Zeng R. 2015. Enhanced tomato disease resistance primed by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus. Front. Plant Sci. 6:786

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00786

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [28]

    Saia S, Tamayo E, Schillaci C, De Vita P. 2020. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nutrient cycling in cropping systems. In Carbon and Nitrogen Cycling in Soil, eds. Datta R, Meena RS, Pathan SI, Ceccherini MT, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. pp. 87−115 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7264-3

    [29]

    Sikes BA, Cottenie K, Klironomos JN. 2009. Plant and fungal identity determines pathogen protection of plant roots by arbuscular mycorrhizas. J. Ecol. 97:1274−80

    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01557.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [30]

    Shrivastava G, Ownley BH, Auge RM, Toler H, Dee M, et al. 2015. Colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal and endophytic fungi enhanced terpene production in tomato plants and their defense against a herbivorous insect. Symbiosis 65:65−74

    doi: 10.1007/s13199-015-0319-1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [31]

    Selvaraj A, Thangavel K. 2021. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi: Potential Plant Protective Agent Against Herbivorous Insect and Its Importance in Sustainable Agriculture. In Symbiotic Soil Microorganisms, eds. Shrivastava N, Mahajan S, Varma A. Soil Biology, 60:vii, 489. Switzerland: Springer, Cham. pp. 319−37 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51916-2_19

    [32]

    McGonigle TP. 1988. A numerical analysis of published field trials with vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Funct. Ecol. 2:473−8

    doi: 10.2307/2389390

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [33]

    Lekberg Y, Koide RT. 2005. Is plant performance limited by abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi? A meta-analysis of studies published between 1988 and 2003. New Phytol. 168:189−204

    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01490.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [34]

    Hoeksema JD, Chaudhary VB, Gehring CA, Johnson NC, Karst J, et al. 2010. A meta-analysis of context-dependency in plant response to inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi. Ecol. Lett. 13:394−407

    doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01430.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [35]

    Larimer AL, Bever JD, Clay K. 2020. The interactive effects of plant microbial symbionts: a review and meta-analysis. Symbiosis 51:139−48

    doi: 10.1007/s13199-010-0083-1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [36]

    Lehmann A, Barto K, Powell JR, Rillig MC. 2012. Mycorrhizal responsiveness trends in annual crop plants and their wild relatives − a meta-analysis on studies from 1981 to 2010. Plant Soil 355:231−50

    doi: 10.1007/s11104-011-1095-1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [37]

    Pellegrino E, Öpik M, Bonari E, Ercoli L. 2015. Responses of wheat to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: A meta-analysis of field studies from 1975 to 2013. Soil Biol. Biochem. 84:210−7

    doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.02.020

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [38]

    Alvarez R, Steinbach HS, De Paepe JL. 2017. Cover crop effects on soils and subsequent crops in the pampas: A meta-analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 170:53−65

    doi: 10.1016/j.still.2017.03.005

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [39]

    Martín-Robles N, Lehmann A, Seco E, Aroca R, Rillig MC, et al. 2018. Impacts of domestication on the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis of 27 crop species. New Phytol. 322−34

    doi: 10.1111/nph.14962

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [40]

    Hallama M, Pekrun C, Lambers H, Kandeler E. 2019. Hidden miners – the roles of cover crops and soil microorganisms in phosphorus cycling through agroecosystems. Plant Soil 434:7−45

    doi: 10.1007/s11104-018-3810-7

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [41]

    Zhang S, Lehmann A, Zheng W, You Z, Rillig MC. 2019. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi increase grain yields: A meta-analysis. New Phytol. 222:543−55

    doi: 10.1111/nph.15570

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [42]

    Ryan MH, Graham JH. 2018. Little evidence that farmers should consider abundance or diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi when managing crops. New Phytol. 220:1092−107

    doi: 10.1111/nph.15308

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [43]

    Rillig MC, Aguilar-Trigueros CA, Camenzind T, Cavagnaro TR, Degrune F, et al. 2019. Why farmers should manage the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. New Phytol. 222:1171−5

    doi: 10.1111/nph.15602

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [44]

    Frew A. 2019. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal diversity increases growth and phosphorus uptake in C3 and C4 crop plants. Soil Biol. Biochem. 135:248−50

    doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.05.015

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [45]

    Chandrasekara A, Kumar TJ. 2016. Roots and tuber crops as functional foods: A review on phytochemical constituents and their potential health benefits. Int. J. Food Sci. 2016:3631647

    doi: 10.1155/2016/3631647

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [46]

    Chaudhary VB, Rúa MA, Antoninka A, Bever JD, Cannon J, et al. 2016. MycoDB, a global database of plant response to mycorrhizal fungi. Sci. Data 3:160028

    doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.28

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [47]

    Van Geel M, De Beenhouwer M, Lievens B, Honnay O. 2016. Crop-specific and single-species mycorrhizal inoculation is the best approach to improve crop growth in controlled environments. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36:37

    doi: 10.1007/s13593-016-0373-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [48]

    Benami M, Isack Y, Grotsky D, Levy D, Kofman Y. 2020. The economic potential of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in agriculture. In Grand Challenges in Fungal Biotechnology, eds. Nevalainen H. Switzerland: Springer, Cham. pp. 239−79 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29541-7_9

    [49]

    Njeru EM, Avio L, Sbrana C, Turrini A, Bocci G, et al. 2014. First evidence for a major cover crop effect on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and organic maize growth. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34:841−8

    doi: 10.1007/s13593-013-0197-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [50]

    Bender SF, Wagg C, van der Heijden MGA. 2016. An underground revolution: Biodiversity and soil ecological engineering for agricultural sustainability. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31:440−52

    doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.016

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [51]

    Verzeaux J, Hirel B, Dubois F, Lea PJ, Tétu T. 2017. Agricultural practices to improve nitrogen use efficiency through the use of arbuscular mycorrhizae: Basic and agronomic aspects. Plant Sci. 264:48−56

    doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2017.08.004

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [52]

    de León DG, Cantero JJ, Moora M, Öpik M, Davison J, et al. 2018. Soybean cultivation supports a diverse arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal community in central Argentina. Appl. Soil Ecol. 124:289−97

    doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.11.020

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [53]

    Porter SS, Sachs JL. 2020. Agriculture and the disruption of plant–microbial symbiosis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35:426−39

    doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2020.01.006

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [54]

    Mortimer PE, Pérez-Fernández MA, Valentine AJ. 2008. The role of arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization in the carbon and nutrient economy of the tripartite symbiosis with nodulated Phaseolus vulgaris. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40:1019−27

    doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.11.014

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [55]

    Mortimer PE, Pérez-Fernández MA, Valentine AJ. 2009. Arbuscular mycorrhizae affect the N and C economy of nodulated Phaseolus vulgaris (L.) during NH4+ nutrition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41:2115−21

    doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.07.021

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [56]

    Rosner K, Bodner G, Hage-Ahmed K, Steinkellner S. 2018. Long-term soil tillage and cover cropping affected arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, nutrient concentrations, and yield in sunflower. Agron. J. 110:2664−72

    doi: 10.2134/agronj2018.03.0177

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [57]

    García-González I, Quemada M, Gabriel JL, Alonso-Ayuso M, Hontoria C. 2018. Legacy of eight-year cover cropping on mycorrhizae, soil, and plants. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 181:818−26

    doi: 10.1002/jpln.201700591

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [58]

    Elliott AJ, Daniell TJ, Cameron DD, Field KJ. 2020. A commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculum increases root colonization across wheat cultivars but does not increase assimilation of mycorrhiza-acquired nutrients. Plants, People, Planet 00:1−12

    doi: 10.1002/ppp3.10094

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [59]

    Higo M, Tatewaki Y, Iida K, Yokota K, Isobe K. 2020. Amplicon sequencing analysis of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities colonizing maize roots in different cover cropping and tillage systems. Sci. Rep. 10:6039

    doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-58942-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [60]

    Helgason T, Daniell TJ, Husband R, Fitter AH, Young JPW. 1998. Ploughing up the wood-wide web? Nature 394:431

    doi: 10.1038/28764

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [61]

    Kabir Z. 2005. Tillage or no-tillage: Impact on mycorrhizae. Can. J. Plant Sci. 85:23−9

    doi: 10.4141/P03-160

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [62]

    Sosa-Hernández MA, Leifheit EF, Ingraffia R, Rillig MC. 2019. Subsoil arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi for sustainability and climate-smart agriculture: A solution right under our feet? Front. Microbiol. 10:744

    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00744

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [63]

    de la Cruz-Ortiz ÁV, Álvarez-Lopeztello J, Robles C, Hernández-Cuevas LV. 2020. Tillage intensity reduces the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi attributes associated with Solanum lycopersicum, in the Tehuantepec Isthmus (Oaxaca) Mexico. Appl. Soil Ecol. 149:103519

    doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103519

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [64]

    Gu S, Wu S, Guan Y, Zhai C, Zhang Z, et al. 2020. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal community was affected by tillage practices rather than residue management in black soil of northeast China. Soil Tillage Res. 198:104552

    doi: 10.1016/j.still.2019.104552

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [65]

    Säle V, Aguilera P, Laczko E, Mäder P, Berner A, et al. 2015. Impact of conservation tillage and organic farming on the diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Soil Biol. Biochem. 84:38−52

    doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.02.005

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [66]

    Wilkes TI, Warner DJ, Davies KG, Edmonds-Brown V. 2020. Tillage, glyphosate and beneficial arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: Optimising crop management for plant–fungal symbiosis. Agriculture 10:520

    doi: 10.3390/agriculture10110520

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [67]

    Pingali P. 2012. Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. PNAS 109:12302−8

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912953109

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [68]

    Treseder KK. 2004. A meta-analysis of mycorrhizal responses to nitrogen, phosphorus, and atmospheric CO2 in field studies. New Phytol. 164:347−55

    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01159.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [69]

    Gosling P, Hodge A, Goodlass G, Bending GD. 2006. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and organic farming. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 113:17−35

    doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.09.009

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [70]

    Robertson GP, Vitousek PM. 2009. Nitrogen in agriculture: Balancing the cost of an essential resource. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34:97−125

    doi: 10.1146/annurev.environ.032108.105046

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [71]

    Crossay T, Majorel C, Redecker D, Gensous S, Medevielle V, et al. 2019. Is a mixture of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi better for plant growth than single-species inoculants? Mycorrhiza 29:325−39

    doi: 10.1007/s00572-019-00898-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [72]

    Hart MM, Antunes PM, Chaudhary VB, Abbott LK. 2018. Fungal inoculants in the field: Is the reward greater than the risk? Funct. Ecol. 32:126−35

    doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12976

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [73]

    Vestberg M, Kahiluoto H, Wallius E. 2011. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal diversity and species dominance in a temperate soil with long-term conventional and low-input cropping systems. Mycorrhiza 21:351−61

    doi: 10.1007/s00572-010-0346-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [74]

    Oruru MB, Njeru EM. 2016. Upscaling arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis and related agroecosystems services in smallholder farming systems. BioMed Res. Int. 2016:4376240

    doi: 10.1155/2016/4376240

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [75]

    Rocha I, Duarte I, Ma Y, Souza-Alonso P, Látr A, et al. 2019. Seed coating with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi for improved field production of chickpea. Agronomy 9:471

    doi: 10.3390/agronomy9080471

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [76]

    Verbruggen E, Kiers ET. 2010. Evolutionary ecology of mycorrhizal functional diversity in agricultural systems. Evol. Applic. 3:547−60

    doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00145.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [77]

    Rodriguez A, Sanders IR. 2015. The role of community and population ecology in applying mycorrhizal fungi for improved food security. ISME J. 9:1053−61

    doi: 10.1038/ismej.2014.207

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [78]

    Rothman DH. 2002. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years. PNAS 99:4167−71

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.022055499

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [79]

    Werner GDA, Zhou Y, Pieterse CMJ, Kiers ET. 2018. Tracking plant preference for higher-quality mycorrhizal symbionts under varying CO2 conditions over multiple generations. Ecol. Evol. 8:78−87

    doi: 10.1002/ece3.3635

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [80]

    Thirkell TJ, Campbell M, Driver J, Pastok D, Merry B, et al. 2020a. Cultivar-dependent increases in mycorrhizal nutrient acquisition by barley in response to elevated CO2. Plants, People, Planet 00:1−14

    doi: 10.1002/ppp3.10174

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [81]

    Thirkell TJ, Pastok D, Field KJ. 2020. Carbon for nutrient exchange between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and wheat varies according to cultivar and changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26:1725−38

    doi: 10.1111/gcb.14851

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [82]

    Alberton O, Kuyper TW, Gorissen A. 2005. Taking mycocentrism seriously: Mycorrhizal fungal and plant responses to elevated CO2. New Phytol. 167:859−68

    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01458.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [83]

    Houlton BZ, Almaraz M, Aneja V, Austin AT, Bai E, et al. 2019. A world of cobenefits: Solving the global nitrogen challenge. Earth's Future 7:865−72

    doi: 10.1029/2019EF001222

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Schaefer DA, Gui H, Mortimer PE, Xu J. 2021. Arbuscular Mycorrhiza and Sustainable Agriculture. Circular Agricultural Systems 1: 6 doi: 10.48130/CAS-2021-0006
    Schaefer DA, Gui H, Mortimer PE, Xu J. 2021. Arbuscular Mycorrhiza and Sustainable Agriculture. Circular Agricultural Systems 1: 6 doi: 10.48130/CAS-2021-0006

Figures(1)  /  Tables(1)

Article Metrics

Article views(7271) PDF downloads(1378)

REVIEW   Open Access    

Arbuscular Mycorrhiza and Sustainable Agriculture

Circular Agricultural Systems  1 Article number: 10.48130/CAS-2021-0006  (2021)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) provide benefits to most crop species via enhanced nutrient uptake, increased drought and abiotic stress resistance, and reduced effects of pathogens and pests. Much remains unclear regarding the specific mechanisms influencing these processes, and the critical roles of AMF are often overlooked in planning agroecological systems. There is growing consensus, however, around the important roles AMF play in improving plant resilience and crop yield while also enhancing the functioning of soil microbial communities. Heterogeneous practices across all scales complicate the successful integration of AMF in agroecological systems. AMF symbioses with crops are passive, or stimulated by incorporation of crop wastes in soil, soil inoculation with AMF spores, or the planting inoculated of seeds. Here we suggest that AMF can have highest beneficial impacts in areas with low levels of agrochemical inputs. We argue that areas with intensive agrochemical inputs can also be made more sustainable with AMF enhancements.

    • Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) belong to the Glomeromycota phylum and engage in symbiotic partnerships with the roots of over 80% of terrestrial plant species. Their hyphae explore large soil volumes, and within plant roots they form arbuscules that exchange chemicals with plant roots. AMF chemical nutrition from soils is compensated by chemical energy supplied by plants to AMF[1]. AMF species have been extensively studied because of their important roles in promoting plant performance and ecosystem services. More specifically, AMF are known to provide benefits to crops in addition to yield enhancement as summarized below (Table 1).

      Table 1.  Potential effects of AMF on crop nutrition, resilience, stress tolerance, and soil properties.

      Effects of AMF on crops and soilsRepresentative citations
      Increased nutrient access by physically and enzymatically expanding the rhizosphere[25]
      Increased water use efficiency[68]
      Increased stress resistance to drought, salinity and phytotoxic metals[911]
      Increased resistance to competition from non-crops (weeds)[1215]
      Increased soil carbon sequestration[6,16,17]
      Increased soil aggregate formation and reduced soil erosion[18,19]
      Reduced soil nutrient losses in liquid and gas phases[3,2022]
      Reduced sensitivity to plant pathogens[2328]
      Reduced sensitivity to herbivory[2931]

      Future agricultural systems will need to provide for a growing human population while also limiting eutrophication of surface waters, mitigating soil erosion, and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. These combined goals are complex and sometimes contradictory. Even so, additions of bio-fertilizers and bio-inoculants can help achieve sustainable agriculture, as these can concurrently deliver multiple ecological benefits. While AMF have entered into mutualistic partnerships with plant roots for about 400 million years, the details of their interactions with crop roots are still not fully understood.

      Here we explore AMF in current agricultural systems and the ways in which AMF can make agriculture more sustainable. Section 2 briefly summarizes earlier research on AMF effects on agricultural systems. Gaps in research and applications for agriculture are emphasized. Attesting to the importance of AMF for crop production, approximately 30 meta-analyses have been published, most of which examine the effects of AMF on crop yields. Section 3 addresses how cropping practices and crop species themselves affect AMF symbioses.

      Ideal combinations of crops and soil AMF partners could potentially deliver high yields and nutritional quality as well as high conversion of externally applied nutrients into saleable products across all soil/climate combinations. Other benefits could include stronger resistance to herbivory and disease as well as bolstered resilience to both persistent and episodic abiotic stresses. Earlier research summarized in Table 1 illuminates these goals. These AMF-strengthened crops might also be adaptable to agroecological systems with a wide range of agrochemical inputs.

    • The effects of AMF on crops and soils are various and complex. We summarize qualitative effects of AMF on crop nutrition, resilience, stress tolerance, and soil properties (Table 1).

    • Global agriculture is heterogeneous in terms of crops, climate and edaphic patterns, and cropping systems. Uniform yield increases with increased AMF management cannot be expected.

      Meta- and other analyses show improved crop yield in response to AMF symbioses[6,28,3241]. Ryan and Graham argued narrowly (mostly focusing on wheat) that AMF had little effect on crop production[42]. A rebuttal by Rillig et al.[43] to Ryan and Graham[42] provided the original impetus for this overview. We agree with Rillig et al.[43] that Ryan and Graham[42] posed their argument too narrowly, but we further suggest that Rillig et al.[43] understated the extent of potential benefits of AMF for crops, as summarized in Table 1.

    • We have combined three reviews of AMF yield effects and grouped their results according to phylogenetic relationships among plant families in Fig. 1. Other yield effect studies are not included because data are not readily comparable. Nonetheless, all crop species from those studies are included in Fig. 1, although some effect size ranges may be underestimated.

      Figure 1. 

      Crop plant phylogeny related to effect sizes of AMF inoculations on yield in field studies. Data are from references[41,46,47].

      The positive and near-neutral effects of AMF inoculations on yield are widely distributed across crop taxa, and show no obvious phylogenetic patterns (Fig. 1). The strongest positive effects are reported for Panicum virgatum (switchgrass), a bioenergy crop, suggesting that future AMF research should not be limited to food crops. Compared to other crop phylogenies, another Poales maize (Zea mays) also shows large positive effects. This supports the suggestion that grasses benefit from AMF[41], despite their relatively small root diameters. Maize receiving large positive effects from AMF inoculations also contrasts with Ryan and Graham’s conclusions mentioned above[42]. Crop yields under both C3 and C4 photosynthetic pathways benefit from AMF symbioses[44], with greater effects on C4 crops, presumably because of higher nutrient demands.

      Trifolium repens (white clover) showed the strongest negative effects with AMF inoculations, but this species also presented a wide range of responses (Fig. 1). Across all crop phylogenies, the widest range of yield effects appear in Fabaceae, which is a family characterized by additional symbioses with N-fixing root-associated bacteria. As N-fixing crops are crucial for agricultural sustainability, further research on AMF interactions for crops in this plant family should be prioritized.

      Root crops in Euphorbiaceae (Manihot esculenta), Apiaceae (Daucus carota), and Amaryllidaceae (Allium cepa) have positive responses to AMF inoculations, while Solanaceae (Solanum tuberosum) mostly has positive responses. No strong phylogenetic differences were observed in these few examples, compared to aboveground harvested crops. Other important root crops are found in families Araceae, Cannaceae, Convolvulaceae, Dioscoreaceae, Lamiaceae and Marantaceae[45]. These crop families are yet to be explored for AMF effects, and accordingly are not presented in Fig. 1. Potential AMF benefits should be further investigated in belowground harvested crops.

      Only one perennial crop seems to have been examined (Vitis vinifera), which presented neutral to positive yield effects (Fig. 1). The world’s two most economically valuable perennial crops are tea (family: Theaceae) and coffee (family: Rubiaceae), and neither has been examined for AMF inoculation effects. Sustainable cultivation of perennial crops could benefit from filling these knowledge gaps.

    • As most crops are symbiotic with AMF, we find no reports of any deleterious effects resulting from crop rotations when the different crops in rotation are all symbiotic with AMF[48]. However, there are cases of negative impacts on crop performance when AMF based crop plants are rotated with non-mycorrhizal crops, such as those of Brassicaceae, which are generally not symbiotic with AMF. These non-mycorrhizal crops can constrain AMF performance in rotations and interfere with AMF persistence over time[49]. However, the value of such crops in rotation should be weighed against potential negative impacts that result from these cropping combinations. For example, canola oilseed (Brassica spp.) may present considerable local-harvest value, and offset downturns in subsequent productivity of cropping cycles[40].

      Nitrogen-fixing crops with root-associated Rhizobia bacteria are also associated with AMF, with the latter providing crucial additional phosphorus from soils for this tripartite symbiosis[11,28,35,5053]. Past studies have also shown that the synergistic effect of the tripartite symbiosis results in greater benefits (improved growth and nutrition) to the host plant than if the host only formed a relationship with one of the symbiotic partners[54,55].

      Fallow periods are part of some cropping cycles and are used in conjunction with tillage for weed control, but many studies have shown these practices could exert negative effects on AMF interactions with subsequent negative impacts on crop performance[11,5659]. Tillage results in an upheaval of soil layers, disrupting established mycelium networks in the soil, upsetting existing microbial communities, and impacting soil density and moisture. All of these factors will impact mycorrhizal communities found within soils, thus potentially influencing crop performance.

    • Effects of crop tillage were an early focus for AMF function[60]. Tillage disrupts extra-radical mycorrhiza, allowing for the possibility that in no-tillage systems, plants may follow old root channels and potentially encounter more AMF propagules than plants growing in tilled soil[61]. AMF present in soils below typical tillage depths, deep-rooted crops, and deep-rooted cover crops can further improve access to AMF benefits[62].

      One meta-analysis showed AMF inoculations had the highest effect on AMF colonization of roots, followed by avoidance of nonmycorrhizal plants in crop rotations, shorter fallow times, and reduced soil disturbance, with the smallest effects from mycorrhizal continuous cropping systems[33]. We find no newer study that has more fully isolated AMF functions across crop/soil management practices.

      This suggests a need to better assess how external factors influence AMF responses. Less-intensive tillage is a viable strategy for enhancing root colonization by indigenous AMF across soil types and crop species[6]. The same study found that reduced tillage and winter cover cropping increased AMF colonization of summer crop roots by 30%, and also suggested that farmers should seek optimal tillage and cover-crop combinations[6].

      Research in under-studied neotropical agroecosystems has recently shown that intensive tillage practices can negatively affect AMF functions[63]. Reduced tillage was more beneficial than crop-residue management in northeast China[64], but this conclusion may not apply across agriculture globally. A comparison of tillage practices over 6 years found AMF spore density and diversity were both reduced by tillage intensity[65]. They further identified AMF as useful indicator species for excessive tillage intensity.

      Glyphosate herbicides are typically used in low- and no-tillage systems for weed management[66]. That study found conventional tillage to have greater negative impacts on AMF than zero tillage and glyphosate, but the authors also remarked that glyphosate is detrimental to AMF growth and hinders subsequent AMF recovery.

    • Crop varieties were intensively bred in the 1960’s Green Revolution for increased yield in response to chemical fertilizer inputs and reduced water supply[67]. Those varieties are also relatively unresponsive to AMF symbioses[28,43,67,68]. The use of fungicides, insecticides, and nematicides negatively affects some aspects of AMF physiology, such as the synthesis of cell-wall chitin[28]. Greater benefits are usually seen in AMF-cultivated plants under organic cropping systems[69] , with lower inorganic nutrient additions, more soil organic matter and organic residues, and limited or no use of other agrochemicals[33].

      Increasing future crop production by globally increasing inorganic fertilizer intensity ignores off-site effects and that crop nutrient-use efficiencies never exceed 50%[70]. Green Revolution crop yields have come at substantial environmental costs[67], and any further yield increases must minimize negative effects on ecosystem sustainability[6].

      Nutrient access afforded to crops by AMF works in distinct ways. Nitrate ions have high mobility, and are thus present throughout soil layers. Compared to plant roots, AMF hyphae are capable of more thoroughly exploring soil volumes for nutrient extraction. Phosphorous, by contrast, is highly immobile in soils, and mostly occurs in forms not directly accessible by plant roots. AMF and their exoenzymes play pivotal roles in accessing, mobilizing, and transferring these resources in exchange for carbohydrates from plant partners. These symbioses between plant roots and AMF function most efficiently in soil without external chemical inputs. Despite this, there may be a wide range of nutrient-supply rates under which AMF can mitigate nutrient losses from croplands where added fertilizers are not taken into biomass[3].

    • Inoculation of AMF as plant-growth promoters has mostly been conducted using single-species inocula[71]. Those authors also found that inoculation with six locally occurring species gave higher yield responses than did commercial single-species inoculation. Such commercial inoculants (typically Rhizopus irregularis) have also been shown to produce few benefits in other studies[58]. Non-local AMF inocula have been considered to be potential environmental risks, and may out-compete local AMF without providing higher plant benefits[43,72]. A lack of consistently higher benefits for plant growth and commercial yields has sparked a debate on how to balance agronomical rewards and potential environmental risks of ‘silver-bullet’ inocula[43,72]. As such inocula are presently considered potentially beneficial for crops[28], the matter remains unresolved.

      In low-input cropping systems, superior results could be obtained if local, fast colonizing AMF inoculants are identified, isolated and cultured for inoculation[73]. Inexpensive and locally produced AMF inoculants have been called for[74]. The possibility of crop-seed coatings containing spores of Rhizopus irregularis has also been considered[75].

      Composition and diversity of AMF communities have been recognized as key factors in plant responses to colonization and potential received benefits[76]. Thus, it is more likely that indigenous AMF community inoculants will benefit crops in locally distinct climate and edaphic settings. However, intensively managed agricultural systems impose strong filters that limit AMF community assemblages and favor those capable of persisting under high rates of disturbance, long fallow periods, and monocultural plant hosts[76].

    • The description of AMF community structures across agroecosystems to identify environmental variables that determine AMF community assemblages has been called for[77]. A large and growing AMF versus crop database is under development[46] that can assist in developing and testing a wide variety of hypotheses. For example, are inoculations with local AMF superior to inoculations with Rhizopus irregularis with particular crops or with crops grown in particular areas? Are plant cultivars selected for high availability of soil nutrients less responsive to AMF, and if so, for which cultivars grown where?

    • Families containing major crop species have developed over the most recent 50 million years. During that time, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 decreased from more than 500 parts per million (ppm) to pre-industrial 280 ppm[78]. During industrialization, CO2 increased to the current level of 410 ppm and will exceed 500 ppm by mid-century. During the last 50 million years, symbioses between plants and AMF has persisted, although their functional details remain hidden from view.

      Studies of AMF-crop symbioses conducted with CO2 concentrations higher than current levels provide some evidence that crop yields might increase[7981]. However, contrasting results have also been published[68,82]. These together can be seen as broad evidence that AMF-crop symbioses are resilient against CO2 increases, but details of AMF benefits to crops (Table 1 and Fig. 1) have not yet been fully explored in this context.

    • It does not appear that further increases in chemical fertilizer applications can solve the problem of providing enough food for the future. Crop nutrient-use efficiencies are low, and externalities (especially for nitrogen and phosphorous) are high. Exogenous nitrogen additions are energy expensive, and exogenous mineral phosphorous supplies may be limited in the future. Instead, we propose that regionally available AMF should be more fully utilized for crops and soils, but also that global agricultural areas differ in pathways for such management.

      Global agricultural N-fertilizer application rates have been mapped[83]. We suggest that in some areas with high rates of fertilizer use, mechanized agriculture and single cropping (e.g., parts of North America and Europe), transitioning to agriculture more dependent an AMF will be slow and incomplete. In other areas with high N-fertilizer application rates (e.g., parts of China and India), crop diversification may be more attractive, and surface-water pollution reduction can be achieved with reducing fertilizer loading. Some of these areas may transition to producing crops more dependent on AMF, realizing sustainability benefits and offer technological leadership. Areas with relatively low N-fertilizer application rates (e.g., Africa and South America) currently grow crops at lower rates of productivity. Increasing fertilizer application rates in these areas would increase costs, and local actors may conclude that optimizing crops and AMF interactions may do more to improve benefit/cost ratios. These areas are probably less likely to invest in chemical herbicides and pesticides, and may conclude that improved AMF-crop associations are effective and sustainable.

      The Green Revolution developed crop varieties that relied upon large agrochemical inputs. These varieties and their chemical management practices are not ideal for sustainable use and to meet the need for further increasing agricultural production. The clear goal for intensification of sustainable agriculture is to provide better food production without degrading other aspects of global ecosystems. This overview shows that AMF-crop interactions are a potential way forward for achieving this goal. More in-depth research is needed here, particularly studies that focus on local crops, local cropping practices, and projected future environmental conditions.

      • Research was supported by Ministry of Sciences and Technology of China 2017YFC0505101, NSFC-CGIAR 31861143002, and Yunnan Provincial Science and Technology Department 202003AD150004. PEM thanks the National Science Foundation of China for financial support from grants 41761144055 and 41771063. HG was supported by Yunnan Fundamental Research Projects (2019FB063) and NSFC Grant 32001296. Austin Smith substantially clarified our presentation.

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      • Copyright: © 2021 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (1)  Table (1) References (83)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Schaefer DA, Gui H, Mortimer PE, Xu J. 2021. Arbuscular Mycorrhiza and Sustainable Agriculture. Circular Agricultural Systems 1: 6 doi: 10.48130/CAS-2021-0006
    Schaefer DA, Gui H, Mortimer PE, Xu J. 2021. Arbuscular Mycorrhiza and Sustainable Agriculture. Circular Agricultural Systems 1: 6 doi: 10.48130/CAS-2021-0006

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return