Quantifies biomass changes in maize with arbuscular mycorrhiza, indicating nutrient-specific effects.
The impact of arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi (AMF) on root–shoot scaling strategies under zinc and phosphorus deficiency remains poorly understood in maize. The aims of this study were (i) To quantify the effects of zinc/phosphorus deficiency on AMF colonization, (ii) to quantify biomass accumulation in different plant parts in the presence of AMF, and (iii) to characterize how AMF alter root–shoot allometric scaling under zinc/phosphorus deficiency. We conducted a pot experiment arranged in RCBD split plot with 6 replications. SUWAN 5819 maize seeds were grown for 22 days under five Hoagland’s solution-based nutrient regimes (+Zn+P, −Zn−P, +Zn−P, −Zn+P, and deionized water), with and without AMF. AMF colonization was highest (49.6%) under −Zn+P contrary to hypothesis 1 which predicted highest colonization under dual deficiency, while the deionized water treatment had the lowest colonization (30.1%). Phosphorus was the dominant factor affecting biomass accumulation with a 2–4-fold reduction in organ dry weights for phosphorus-deficient treatments compared to phosphorus-sufficient treatments. AMF colonization significantly reduced dry weights in +Zn+P by 8.6%, 19.0%, and 47.5% in the leaf, stem, and roots, respectively, consistent with mycorrhiza-induced growth depression (MGD). Nutrient deficiency resulted in root biomass accumulation, consistent with the optimal partitioning theory. AMF increased shoot mass fraction from 50% to 63% in +Zn+P, and from 41% to 52.5% in −Zn−P, suggesting AMF role in modulating biomass accumulation. Root–shoot scaling slopes derived from LMM revealed that zinc deficiency caused negative scaling trajectory, and AMF was associated with positive root–shoot scaling trajectory in the −Zn+P treatment, though the scaling relationship was not confirmed by SMA analysis. These findings highlight nutrient specific AMF-mediated growth dynamics in early vegetative stage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dau et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: