Plant and Soil

, Volume 104, Issue 2, pp 294–298 | Cite as

Effects of phosphorus application and mycorrhizal inoculation on root characteristics of subterranean clover and ryegrass in relation to phosphorus uptake

  • N. S. Bolan
  • A. D. Robson
  • N. J. Barrow
Short Communications

Abstract

The effects of phosphorus (P) application and mycorrhizal inoculation on the root characteristics of subterranean clover and ryegrass were examined. Phosphorus application increased total root length, root surface area and root volume of both plant species. In contrast, mycorrhizal infection only affected the root characteristics of subterranean clover. Ryegrass took up more P than non-mycorrhizal subterranean clover at all levels of application. However, mycorrhizal infection only increased P uptake by subterranean clover and there was no difference in P uptake between ryegrass and mycorrhizal subterranean clover at low levels of P application. When the P uptake was expressed on the basis of any of the root characteristics, subterranean clover were superior to ryegrass suggesting that the greater uptake of P by ryegrass is not due to a higher efficiency in absorption of P from soil solution, but rather to a large root system.

Key words

Glomus fasciculatum Lolium rigidum phosphorus uptake root characteristics Trifolium subterraneum vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abott L K and Robson A D 1977 Aust. J. Agric. Res. 28, 639–649.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott L K and Robson A D 1982 Aust. J. Agric. Res. 33, 389–408.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson D 1973 New Phytol. 72, 101–111.Google Scholar
  4. Barber S A 1980 The Role of Phosphorus in Agriculture. American Society of Agronomy. Wisconsin. p. 591–615.Google Scholar
  5. Barrow N J 1975 Aust. J. Agric. Res. 26, 137–156.Google Scholar
  6. Baylis G T S 1970 Plant and Soil 33, 713–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhat K K S and Nye P H 1974 Plant and Soil 41, 365–382.Google Scholar
  8. Bolan N S et al. 1987 Plant and Soil 99, 401–410.Google Scholar
  9. Bowen G D 1973 Ectomycorrhizae: Their Ecology and Physiology. Academic Press, New York. p. 151–205.Google Scholar
  10. Christie E K 1975 Aust. J. Agric. Res. 26, 437–446.Google Scholar
  11. Christie E K and Moorby J 1975 Aust. J. Agric. Res. 26, 423–436.Google Scholar
  12. Cowell J D 1963 Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 3, 190–197.Google Scholar
  13. Cress W A et al. 1979. Plant Physiol. 64, 484–487.Google Scholar
  14. Crush J R 1973 New Phytol., 72, 965–973.Google Scholar
  15. Hall I R 1978 N.Z.J. Agric. Res. 21, 509–515.Google Scholar
  16. Hayman D S and Mosse B 1972 New Phytol. 71, 41–47.Google Scholar
  17. Itoh S and Barber S A 1983 Agron. J. 75, 457–461.Google Scholar
  18. Loneragan J F 1978 Crop Tolerance to Suboptimal Land Conditions. American Society of Agronomy, Wisconsin. p. 329–343.Google Scholar
  19. McLachlan K D 1976 Aust. J. Agric. Res. 27, 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mosse B et al. 1973. New Phytol. 72, 809–815.Google Scholar
  21. Newman E I 1966 J. Appl. Ecol. 3, 139–145.Google Scholar
  22. Nye P H et al. 1975 Plant and Soil 42, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tinker P B 1975 Endomycorrhizas. Academic Press, New York. p. 353–371.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. S. Bolan
    • 1
  • A. D. Robson
    • 1
  • N. J. Barrow
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Soil Science and Plant NutritionUniversity of Western Australia

Personalised recommendations