VARIATION IN PLANT RESPONSE TO NATIVE AND EXOTIC ARBUSCULAR MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI

By J. Klironomos. 2003

1,184 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/277c5c8bf444d2dff142d0f9798bee41c8462cba

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

Resource limitation is a driver of local adaptation in mycorrhizal symbioses (2010, background): “Mutual cooperation is more likely to develop in stable longterm partnerships than in novel combinations of plants and AM fungi (11).”
Comparisons of Mycorrhizal Responsiveness with Field Soil and Commercial Inoculum for Six Native Montane Species and Bromus tectorum (2007, background): “For native plant community restoration, the source of AMF can be important (Klironomos 2003; Moora et al. 2004).”
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi pre-inoculant identity determines community composition in roots (2009, background): “A number of studies have shown that AMF inoculation does not always result in increased benefits to plants (e.g. Johnson et al., 1997; Requena et al., 2001; Klironomos, 2003).”
Mycorrhizal diversity: Cause and effect? (2005, background): “The benefit to host plants from increased root colonization by a single fungal species has proven inconsistent (Fitter, 1991; Fitter and Meryweather, 1992), and the outcome of different plant–fungal species combinations is highly variable (Klironomos, 2003).”
The advantages and disadvantages of being introduced (2006, background): “2004); instead, both the positive and the negative effects of mycorrhizal fungi tend to be greater on native than on introduced plants (Klironomos 2003).”
Trade-Offs in Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis: Disease Resistance, Growth Responses and Perspectives for Crop Breeding (2017, neutral): “Some plant and AMF combinations are more productive than others [109], further complicating the perspectives for crop breeding.”
Soil inoculation method determines the strength of plant–soil interactions (2012, background): “In addition, co-occurring plant species can change the abiotic and biotic conditions in the soil, which can then feed back to the focal plant (Aerts and Chapin, 2000; Klironomos, 2003; van de Voorde et al., 2011).”
Mycorrhizal colonization impacts on phenolic content and antioxidant properties of artichoke leaves and flower heads two years after field transplant (2010, positive): “…also underline that the effect on TPC and ARP values is strongly dependent on the AM fungal species used as inoculum, confirming previous reports on variable effects of different AM fungal isolates on host plant growth (Klironomos 2003; Munkvold et al. 2004; Smith et al. 2004; Gai et al. 2006).”
Predicting species distribution and abundance responses to climate change: why it is essential to include biotic interactions across trophic levels (2010, background): “…range-expanding plants and mycorrhizal fungi and other symbionts have not yet been tested, but given the reported specificity in at least some host–symbiont interactions (Klironomos 2003), plant–mutualism interactions might be less effective in the new range when compared with the original range.”
Is successional research nearing its climax? New approaches for understanding dynamic communities (2015, background): “Furthermore, the direction and strength of interaction between individual plant species and their microbes can vary based on the identity of the microbe, even within mutualists (Klironomos 2003).”