Plant and Soil

, Volume 86, Issue 3, pp 369–378 | Cite as

Drought resistance of wheat plants inoculated with vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae

  • J. R. Ellis
  • H. J. Larsen
  • M. G. Boosalis


Drought resistance of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) as influenced by two vesiculararbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) fungi,Glomus fasciculatum10 andGlomus deserticola19, was evaluated. Soil columns 0.15 m diam. by 1.20 m length were used to reduce the influence of limited rooting space. With initial soil water at 0.5 MPa (0.145 kg kg−1), plants were subjected to low-level water stress throughout the experiment and severe water stress for 24 h at one (55 days after transplanting, Feekes scale 10.1) two (55 and 63 days, Feekes 10.1 and 10.2), or three (55, 63, and 70 days, Feekes 10.1, 10.1, and 10.2) periods. After each stress period, one set of plants was watered and grown to maturity without subsequent water stress. A second set of plants was harvested 1 week after stress.G. fasciculatum-inoculated plants harvested 7 days after stress at 55 days had greater leaf area and leaf, total plant, and root weight than non-VAM plants.G. deserticola-inoculated plants had greater leaf area and leaf weight than non-VAM plants. After stress at 55 and 63 days, leaf area, and leaf and total dry weight were again greater for VAM than for non-VAM plants. However, after stress at 55, 63, and 70 days, differences in aboveground biomass between VAM and non-VAM plants were not significant at P=0.05. Aboveground biomass was not affected by VAM species in plants stressed at 55 or 55 and 63 days, butG. fasciculatum-inoculated plants produced more tillers atter stress at 55 days. When grown to maturity, VAM plants which had undergone three stress periods had twice the biomass and grain yield as non-VAM plants subjected to the same stress. The three stress periods reduced number of heads and kernel numbers of weight of non-VAM plants compared to VAM plants.G. fasciculatum-inoculated plants consistently had increased root weight and rooting depth.

Key words

Dry-matter accumulation Glomus deserticola Glomus fasciculatum Mycorrhizae Root growth Triticum aestivum 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allen E B and Allen M F 1980 Natural re-establishment of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae following stripmine reclamation in Wyoming. J. Appl. Ecol. 17, 139–147.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen M F and Boosalis M G 1983 Effects of two species of VA mycorrhizal fungi on drought tolerance of winter wheat. New Phytol. 93, 67–76.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allen M F, Smith W K, Moore T S Jr and Christensen M 1981 Comparative water relations and photosynthesis of mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizalBouteloua gracilis H.B.K. Lag. ex Steud. New Phytol. 88 683–693.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown G R and Thilenius J F 1976 A low-cost machine for separation of roots from soil materials. J. Range Manage. 29, 506–596.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carmi A and Shalhevet J 1983 Root effects on cotton growth and yield. Crop Sci. 23, 875–878.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conover W J and Inman R L 1981 Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. Am. Stat. 35, 124–129.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davidson D E and Christensen M 1977 Root-microfungal associations in shortgrass prairie.In The Belowground Ecosystem: A synthesis of plant-associated processes. Ed. J K Marshall. Colo. State Univ., Fort. Collins, Colo., pp. 279–287.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fenster C R, Owens H I and Follett R H 1977 Conservation tillage for wheat in the Great Plains. PA-1190, USDA. Et. Serv.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fenster C R and Peterson G A 1979 Effects of no-tillage fallow as compared to conventional tillage in a wheat-fallow system. Res. Bul. 289. Univ. Nebr.-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebr.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerdemann J W and Trappe J M 1974 The Endogenaceae in the Pacific Northwest. Mycologia Memoir No. 5. New York Botanical Garden, New York. 76 pp.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hayman D S 1982 Influence of soils and fertility on activity and survival of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Phytopathology 72, 1119–1125.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hodges J L and Lehman E 1956 The efficiency of some nonparametric competitors of the T-test. Ann. Math. Stat. 27, 324–335.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kormanik P P, Bryan W C and Schultz R C 1980 Procedures and equipment for staining large numbers of plant roots for endomycorrhizal assay. Can. J. Microbiol. 26, 536–538.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levy Y, Syversen J P and Nemec S 1983, Effect of drought stress and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae on citrus transpiration and hydraulic conductivity of roots. New Phytol. 93, 61–66.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Menge J A, Labanauskas C K, Johnson E L V and Platt R G 1978 Partial substitution of mycorrhizal fungi for phosphorus fertilization in the greenhouse culture of citrus. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42, 926–930.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Safir G R, Boyer J S and Gerdemann J W 1972 Nutrient status and mycorrhizal enhancement of water transport in soybean. Plant Physiol. 49 700–703.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    SAS 1982 SAS User's Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, No. Car. 584 pp.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sieverding E 1981 Influence of soil moisture regime on VA mycorrhiza. I. Effect on plant growth, water utilization and development of mycorrhiza. Z. Acker Pflanzenbau 150, 400–411.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Trappe J M, Bloss H E and Menge J A 1984Glomus deserticola sp. nov. Mycotaxon 20, 123–127.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. R. Ellis
    • 1
    • 2
  • H. J. Larsen
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. G. Boosalis
    • 1
    • 2
  2. 2.Univ. Nebr.-LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations