Comparisons of Mycorrhizal Responsiveness with Field Soil and Commercial Inoculum for Six Native Montane Species and Bromus tectorum

124 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Local soil, but not commercial AMF inoculum, increases native and non‐native grass growth at a mine restoration site (2016, result): “Similar studies have likewise shown negligible effects of commercial AMF inocula, or greater effects of local soil relative to commercial AMF (Rowe et al. 2007; Cook et al. 2011; Williams et al. 2012), or have shown negligible effects of both commercial and local soil inocula (Salyards et al. 2003;…”
Efficacy of Biofertilizers: Challenges to Improve Crop Production (2016, background): “The situation does not appear more promising in case of AMF-based biofertilizers: surveys of products showed a very low quantity of viable propagules and reduced colonization potentials (Corkidi et al. 2004 ; Faye et al. 2013 ; Rowe et al. 2007 ; Tarbell and Koske 2007 ).”
Sources of inocula influence mycorrhizal colonization of plants in restoration projects: a meta‐analysis (2015, background): “In cases where reference sites are slated for development, topsoil containing fungal propagules could be salvaged from the reference site prior to construction or development (Rowe et al. 2007).”