Plant and Soil

, Volume 340, Issue 1–2, pp 327–336 | Cite as

Arbuscular mycorrhizas in southeastern Australian processing tomato farm soils

  • Timothy Richard Cavagnaro
  • Ashley W. Martin
Regular Article


Here we report the results of a study of the formation and functioning of AM in processing tomato farm soils from across southeastern Australia. In a survey, which included the majority of processing tomato producers in the industry, mycorrhizal colonization of roots was generally low, and in many instances, completely absent. This result can be explained by the use of soil fumigants on many farms. While previous cropping history did not explain levels of AM colonization, the proportion of mycorrhizal crops in the rotation had an influence on soil C, which was generally low across most sites. In an effort to further explore the functioning of AM, a targeted glasshouse experiment was undertaken, in which a mycorrhiza defective tomato mutant and its mycorrhizal wild-type progenitor were grown under uniform conditions. While AM colonization of plants was highest when grown in soil collected from an un-farmed site in this glasshouse experiment, AM provided a greater benefit (in terms of root Zn nutrition) when grown in soil collected from more fertile farm sites. Together, these data indicate that farm management decisions (in this case soil fumigation) may have consequences for the formation of AM, which in turn, may reduce the benefits of AM in these farm soils.


Arbuscular mycorrhizas Farm soil survey Glasshouse Mycorrhiza defective tomato mutant (rmcSoil fumigation Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) 



The authors wish to thank the Australian Processing Tomato Research Council and its member growers for site access. We also gratefully acknowledge assistance provided by Ms Liz Mann and Dr Doris Blaesing in site selection and survey planning. Thanks also to Ms Leesa Hughes and Ms Merryn Smith for technical assistance. A small sub-set of the data presented here appear in preliminary form in the Australian Processing Tomato Research Council annual report (2009). This research was funded by the Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Caring for our County program, and with the support of the School of Biological Sciences, Monash University.


  1. Baon JB, Smith SE, Alston AM, Wheeler RD (1992) Phosphorus efficiency of three cereals as related to indigenous mycorrhizal infection. Aust J Agric Res 43:479–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker SJ, Stummer B, Gao L, Dispain I, O’Connor PJ, Smith SE (1998) A mutant in Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. with highly reduced VA mycorrhizal colonization, isolation and preliminary characterisation. Plant J 15:791–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolan NS, Robson AD, Barrow NJ (1984) Increasing phosphorus supply can increase the infection of plant roots by vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Soil Biol Biochem 16:419–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cavagnaro TR (2008) The role of arbuscular mycorrhzas in improving plant zinc nutrition under low soil zinc concentrations: a review. Plant Soil 304:315–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cavagnaro TR, Smith FA, Hay G, Carne-Cavagnaro VL, Smith SE (2004) Inoculum type does not affect overall resistance of an arbuscular mycorrhiza-defective tomato mutant to colonisation but inoculation does change competitive interactions with wild-type tomato. New Phytol 161:485–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cavagnaro TR, Smith FA, Smith SE, Jakobsen I (2005) Functional diversity in arbuscular mycorrhizas: exploitation of soil patches with different phosphate enrichment differs among fungal species. Plant Cell Environ 164:485–491Google Scholar
  7. Cavagnaro TR, Jackson LE, Six J, Ferris H, Goyal S, Asami D, Scow KM (2006) Arbuscular mycorrhizas, microbial communities, nutrient availability, and soil aggregates in organic tomato production. Plant Soil 282:209–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavagnaro TR, Langley AJ, Jackson LE, Smukler SM, Koch GW (2008) Growth, nutrition, and soil respiration of a mycorrhiza-defective tomato mutant and its mycorrhizal wild-type progenitor. Funct Plant Biol 35:228–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cavagnaro TR, Dickson S, Smith FA (2010) Arbuscular mycorrhiza modify plant responses to soil zinc addition. Plant Soil 329:307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cordell D, Drangert J-O, White S (2009) The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Glob Environ Change 19:292–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. David-Schwartz BH, Smadar W, Levy AA, Galili G, Kapulnik Y (2001) Identification of a novel genetically controlled step in mycorrhizal colonization: plant resistance to infection by fungal spores but not extra-radical hyphae. Plant J 27:561–569CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. David-Schwartz R, Gadkar V, Wininger S, Bendov R, Galili G, Levy AA, Kapulnik Y (2003) Isolation of a premycorrhizal infection (pmi2) mutant of tomato, resistant to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal colonization. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 16:382–388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gao L, Smith FA, Smith SE (2006) The rmc locus does not affect plant interactions of defence-related gene expression when tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is infected with the root fungal parasite, Rhizoctonia. Funct Plant Biol 33:289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harrison MJ (1999) Molecular and cellular aspects of the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 50:361–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoeksema JD, Chaudhary VB, Gehring CA, Collins-Johnson N, Karst J, Koide RT, Pringle A, Zabinski C, Bever JD, Moore JC, Wilson GWT, Klironomos JN, Umbanhowar J (2010) A meta-analysis of context-dependency in plant response to inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi. Ecol Lett 13:394–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jackson L, Burger M, Cavagnaro T (2008) Roots, nitrogen transformations, and ecosystem services. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:341–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson NC, Wolf J, Reyes M, Panter A, Koch GW, Redman A (2005) Species of plants and associated arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi mediate mycorrhizal responses to CO2 enrichment. Glob Chang Biol 11:1156–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kjøller R, Rosendahl S (2000) Effects of fungicides on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: differential responses in alkaline phosphatase activity of external and internal hyphae. BIol Fertil Soils 31:361–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marschner H (1995) Mineral nutrition of higher plants. Academic Press Ltd, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  20. Marschner P, Timonen S (2004) Interactions between plant species and mycorrhizal colonization on the bacterial community composition in the rhizosphere. Appl Soil Ecol 28:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin AW (2007) The role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in sustainable tomato production. In Dissertation, Soil and Water. Dissertation,The University of Adelaide, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller RD, Jackson LE (1998) Survey of vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizae in lettuce production in relation to management and soil factors. J Agric Sci 130:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oliver AJ, Smith SE, Nicholas DJD, Wallace W, Smith FA (1983) Activity of nitrate reductase in Trifolium subterraneum: effects of mycorrhizal infection and phosphate nutrition. New Phytol 94:63–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Potthoff M, Jackson LE, Sokolow S, Joergensen RG (2009) Below and aboveground responses to lupines and litter mulch in a California grassland restored with native bunchgrasses. Appl Soil Ecol 42:124–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Poulsen KH, Nagy R, Gao L-L, Smith SE, Bucher M, Smith FA, Jakobsen I (2005) Physiological and molecular evidence for Pi uptake via the symbiotic pathway in a reduced mycorrhizal colonization mutant in tomato associated with a compatible fungus. New Phytol 168:445–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rasmann C, Graham JH, Chellemi DO, Datnoff LE, Larsen J (2009) Resilient populations of root fungi occur within five tomato production systems in southeast Florida. Appl Soil Ecol 43:22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rillig MC (2004) Arbuscular mycorrhizae and terrestrial ecosystem processes. Ecol Lett 7:740–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rillig MC, Ramsey PW, Gannon JE, Mummey DL, Gadkar V, Kapulnik Y (2008) Suitability of mycorrhiza-defective mutant/wildtype plant pairs (Solanum lycopersicum L. cv Micro-Tom) to address questions in mycorrhizal soil ecology. Plant Soil 308:267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith SE, Read DJ (2008) Mycorrhizal symbiosis. Academic Press Ltd., CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith SE, Smith FA, Jakobsen I (2004) Functional diversity in arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) symbioses: the contribution of the mycorrhizal P uptake pathway is not correlation with mycorrhizal responses in growth or total P uptake. New Phytol 162:511–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Taiz L (2002) Mineral nutrition. In: Taiz L, Zeiger E (eds) Plant physiology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 103–124Google Scholar
  32. Tanaka Y, Yano K (2005) Nitrogen delivery to maize via mycorrhizal hyphae depends on the form of N supplied. Plant Cell Environ 28:1247–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thompson JP (1987) Decline of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae in long fallow disorder of field crops and its expression in deficiency of sunflower. Aust J Agric Res 38:847–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thompson JP (1996) Correction of dual phosphorus and zinc deficiencies on Linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) with cultures of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Soil Biol Biochem 28:941–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tran J, Cavagnaro TR (2010) Growth and mycorrhizal colonization of two grasses in soils with different inundation histories. J Arid Environ 74:715–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy Richard Cavagnaro
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ashley W. Martin
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.The Australian Centre for BiodiversityMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations