English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Tamarix spp. are ecological threats in the Southwest U.S.A. because they displace native vegetation, increase soil salinity, and negatively affect soil microbial communities. After Tamarix L. removal, legacy effects often necessitate restoration to improve ecosystem services of Tamarix-impacted communities. Commercial mycorrhizae fungal inoculation has been recommended to improve restoration success, although inoculation treatments are rarely tested on lesser-known facultative riparian species. Our study asked two questions: (1) Can a commercial mycorrhizal fungal inoculant increase native Baccharis salicifolia (Ruiz &amp; Pav.) Pers. (mule-fat) performance against Tamarix chinensis Lour. (i.e., tamarisk) and is this influenced by tamarisk leaf litter? (2) Is mycorrhizal colonization of mule-fat roots influenced by tamarisk stem density and leaf litter? A greenhouse experiment was performed with mule-fat cuttings in soil collected from a tamarisk monoculture. Treatments were factorial combinations of tamarisk stem densities (0, 1, 2, 3, 4 stems pot−1) with or without mycorrhizal inoculation and tamarisk litter. There were five replications and two greenhouse runs. The total biomass of both species was determined and mule-fat arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization rates were determined via the magnified intersection method. Increasing tamarisk biomass negatively affected mule-fat biomass, but there were interactions with tamarisk biomass, litter and mycorrhizal inoculation, with litter and inoculation increasing mule-fat growth at high tamarisk biomass. Arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization was high in all treatments, yet at higher tamarisk stem densities, inoculation and litter improved colonization. Interestingly, litter did not negatively impact mule-fat as predicted. Moreover, litter and mycorrhizal inoculum interacted with tamarisk to improve mule-fat growth at higher tamarisk biomass, suggesting an opportunity to improve restoration success when in competition with tamarisk.

agronomy

Impacts of Tamarix (L.) Litter and Mycorrhizal Amendments on Baccharis salicifolia (Ruiz &amp; Pav.) Pers. Competitiveness and Mycorrhizal Colonization