Separation of Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus and Root Effects on Soil Aggregation

Thomas, Richard S.; Franson, Raymond L.; Bethlenfalvay, Gábor J.

doi:10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700010015x

Cited by 65 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, we agree with a wide range of studies that state there is a strong link between the presence of fungi (AM included) and surrogates of soil structure (Monlope et Thomas et al 1993;Tisdall et al 1997). Our intention was simply, for the first time, to examine the muchpublished concept that the presence of glomalin was indicative of a "stable" structure, and that the mechanism behind this correlation was related to the impact of the hydrophobic glomalin upon water infiltration.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Does the presence of glomalin relate to reduced water infiltration through hydrophobicity?

Feeney¹,

Daniell²,

Hallett³

et al. 2004

Can. J. Soil. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I. M. 2004. Does the presence of glomalin relate to reduced water infiltration through hydrophobicity? Can. J. Soil Sci. 84: 365-372. The resilience and stability of the physical structure of soil impacts directly on all soil processes, mediating microbial activity and defining the flow pathways between the soil ecosystem, waterways and the atmosphere. The effect of the presence of the glycoprotein glomalin exuded from Arbuscular Mycorrhzal (AM) fungi, on soil hydrophobicity is presented. A possible role for glomalin as improving soil structural stability is important in the context of soil protection. Using total glomalin, together with measurements of soil hydrophobicity, we investigate the spatial correlations between the two measurements in the presence and absence of pea roots. Whilst AM fungi were visible within roots (up to 52% root length colonization), no differences in glomalin concentration between planted and unplanted controls were observed. The presence and amount of glomalin did not correspond to the presence or level of hydrophobicity in soil. We discuss these results in relation to AM fungal-glomalin interactions, soil structure and root exudation.Key words: Glomalin, water infiltration, mycorrhizae, soil structure, hydrophobic Feeney, D. S., Daniell, T., Hallett, P. D., Illian, J., Ritz, K. et Young, I. M. 2004. La glomaline explique-t-elle la baisse de l'infiltration d'eau attribuable à l'hydrophobicité? Can. J. Soil Sci. 84: 365-372. La résilience et la stabilité de la structure physique du sol influent directement sur les mécanismes pédologiques en favorisant l'activité de la microflore et en régissant les flux entre l'écosystème tellurique, les cours d'eau et l'atmosphère. Les auteurs ont examiné l'incidence de la glomaline, une glycoprotéine extraite des mycorhizes à arbuscules (MA), sur l'hydrophobicité du sol. La glomaline pourrait stabiliser la structure du sol davantage, ce qui en accroîtrait l'importance pour la protection des sols. Les auteurs ont étudié les corrélations spatiales entre la concentration totale de glomaline et l'hydrophobicité du sol avec et sans racines de pois. Si les MA sont visibles sur les racines (colonisation de jusqu'à 52 % du système racinaire), on n'observe aucune variation de la concentration de glomaline entre les parcelles cultivées et les parcelles témoins qui ne l'étaient pas. La présence et la quantité de glomaline ne présentent aucune correspondance avec l'hydrophobicité du sol et son importance. Les auteurs analysent leurs résultats en fonction des interactions entre les MA et la glomaline, la structure du sol et l'exsudation des racines.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Does the presence of glomalin relate to reduced water infiltration through hydrophobicity?

Feeney¹,

Daniell²,

Hallett³

et al. 2004

Can. J. Soil. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies suggested plant roots were important binding agents at the scale of macroaggregates (e.g. Thomas et al 1993). The direct effect of roots on aggregation was the greatest with perennial vegetation species due to the enmeshment of their extensive fine root systems with soil.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil structure and carbon distribution in subsoil affected by vegetation restoration

Zhao

Han

Yang

et al. 2014

Plant Soil Environ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The depth of sampling is an important factor for evaluating soil stability. The objective of this study was to test soil aggregate particle-size fractions and soil organic carbon (SOC) in water-stable aggregate by vegetation restoration through 0-60 cm soil profile. We collected soil samples in 30 years old Robinia psendoacacia (Rr); Platycladus orientalis (Po); Pinus tabulaeformis (Pt); abandoned land (Ab), and slope cropland (Sc), which were separated into > 2, 2-1, 1-0.25, 0.25-0.053, and < 0.053 mm fractions. The > 0.25 mm water-stable aggregates (WSA) and mean weight diameter (MWD) were calculated in 0-60 cm soil depth. Results showed that soil aggregate fractions (> 0.25 mm) of four vegetation types were significantly (P < 0.05) higher in 40-60 cm soil depth under Po, Pt, and Ab compared with Sc and the SOC distribution in macro-aggregates (> 0.25 mm) under Rr, Po, Pt, and Ab was higher more than 37.7, 92.4, 92.5, 79.1%, respectively in 40-60 cm compared with Sc additionally, > 0.25 mm WSA and MWD was significantly higher in Pt soil in 20-40 cm, 40-60 cm soil depth (P < 0.05). The results demonstrated that soil stability was enhanced and SOC content was increased after converting slope cropland to forest, especially under Pt forest that greatly influenced the subsoil.

show abstract

“…In contrast, random roughness is much smaller but acts independently of the slope aspect. Roughness decay is governed by three factors: the stability of the soil, which depends on cohesive substances, namely clay (Kemper and Rosenau, 1984), organic matter (Tisdall and Oades, 1982), soil moisture (Cousen and Farres, 1984;Kemper and Rosenau, 1984;Auerswald et al, 1994), roots and mycelia (Oades, 1987;Marinissen and Dexter, 1990;Thomas et al, 1993); the extent of forces that interact with the surface, which mainly result from rain (Zobeck and Onstad, 1987) and wind (Saleh and Fryrear, 1999); and the degree to which the surface roughness is protected from these forces, which mainly results from soil cover. Tillage thus creates roughness, but by destroying the soil cover (Colvin et al, 1981) and weakening the aggregates (Auerswald, 1993) also promotes its subsequent decay.…”

Section: Surface Roughness and Detention Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

Spatio-temporal patterns in land use and management affecting surface runoff response of agricultural catchments—A review

Fiener

Auerswald

Oost

2011

Earth-Science Reviews

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oSurface runoff and associated erosion processes adversely affect soil and surface water quality. There is increasing evidence that a sound understanding of spatial-temporal dynamics of land use and management are crucial to understanding surface runoff processes and underpinning mitigation strategies. In this review, we synthesise the effects of (1) temporal patterns of land management of individual fields, and (2) spatio-temporal interaction of several fields within catchments by applying semivariance analysis, which allows the extent and range of the different patterns to be compared. Consistent effects of management on the temporal dynamics of surface runoff of individual fields can be identified, some of which have been incorporated into small-scale hydrological models. In contrast, the effects of patchiness, the spatial organisation of patches with different soil hydrological properties, and the effects of linear landscape structures are less well understood and are rarely incorporated in models. The main challenge for quantifying these effects arises from temporal changes within individual patches, where the largest contrasts usually occur in mid-summer and cause a seasonally varying effect of patchiness on the overall catchment response. Some studies indicate that increasing agricultural patchiness, due to decreasing field sizes, reduces the catchment-scale response to rainfall, especially in cases of Hortonian runoff. Linear structures associated with patchiness of fields (e.g. field borders, ditches, and ephemeral gullies) may either increase or decrease the hydraulic connectivity within a catchment. The largest gap in research relates to the effects and temporal variation of patch interaction, the influence of the spatial organisation of patches and the interaction with linear structures. In view of the substantial changes in the structure of agricultural landscapes occurring throughout the world, it is necessary to improve our knowledge of the influence of patchiness and connectivity, and to implement this knowledge in new modelling tools.

show abstract

Separation of Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus and Root Effects on Soil Aggregation

Cited by 65 publications

References 0 publications

Does the presence of glomalin relate to reduced water infiltration through hydrophobicity?

Does the presence of glomalin relate to reduced water infiltration through hydrophobicity?

Soil structure and carbon distribution in subsoil affected by vegetation restoration

Spatio-temporal patterns in land use and management affecting surface runoff response of agricultural catchments—A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About