酸性土壤中丛枝菌根真菌菌剂多样性对玉米产量及其磷钾吸收的影响

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.15.003

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】明确酸性土壤中丛枝菌根真菌（arbuscular mycorrhizae fungi,AMF）菌剂多样性在玉米籽粒产量和磷、钾养分吸收方面的作用,能够为农田微生物肥料配施、养分利用率提高等方面提供理论依据。【方法】2019和2020年玉米生育期,选用4种不同种丛枝菌根真菌类型（摩西斗管囊霉Funneliformis mosseae,A;扭形球囊霉Glomus tortuosum,B;地表球囊霉Glomus versiforme,C;地斗管囊霉Funneliformis geosporum,D）,设置不接菌处理（CK）,接种单一AMF菌剂、2种AMF混合菌剂、3种AMF混合菌剂和4种AMF混合菌剂共16个处理,研究玉米籽粒产量、植株各器官生物量及其磷、钾累积量对不同菌剂类型以及菌剂多样性的响应。【结果】与对照相比,两个试验年度所有接菌处理均能增加玉米籽粒产量及其磷、钾累积量,其中接种A、B、C、D 4种单一菌剂处理的玉米籽粒产量均值分别增加57.9%,26.9%,40.5%和32.9%;磷累积量增加77.8%,48.2%,26.2%和75.8%;钾累积量增加85.5%,62.1%,59.0%和63.5%。随AMF菌剂多样性增加,两个试验年度玉米籽粒产量呈增加趋势,表现为4种混合菌剂>3种混合菌剂>2种混合菌剂>单一菌剂,其中4种混合菌剂处理籽粒产量比单一菌剂处理均值高12.3%;籽粒磷累积量表现为2种混合菌剂>4种混合菌剂>3种混合菌剂>单一菌剂,其中2种混合菌剂处理籽粒磷累积量比单一菌剂高23.2%;但AMF菌剂多样性处理之间玉米籽粒钾累积量差异不显著。【结论】在酸性土壤条件下玉米接种不同类型丛枝菌根真菌均能显著增加籽粒产量及其磷、钾累积量,其中Funneliformis mosseae改善玉米籽粒产量及其磷钾累积量的作用最佳。丛枝菌根真菌菌剂多样性增加能显著提高玉米籽粒产量和磷累积量,其中4种混合菌剂处理的增产效果较好,而2种混合菌剂处理的养分吸收积累量较高。生产上应根据高产优质不同目的,选择接种合适的丛枝菌根真菌类型并进行菌剂之间合理的搭配。

关键词: 丛枝菌根真菌, 菌剂多样性, 玉米产量, 磷累积量, 钾累积量

Abstract:

【Objective】The aim of this study was to clarify the effects of different arbuscular mycorrhizae fungi (AMF) inoculants and their diversity on maize grains yield and the absorption and accumulation of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) in acidic soil, so as to provide a theoretical basis for the application of farmland microbial fertilizer and the improvement of crop nutrient uptake. 【Method】Four different AMF species (Funneliformis mosseae, A; Glomus tortuosum, B; Glomus versiforme, C; Funneliformis geosporum, D) were selected as experimental materials in 2019 and 2020, and a pot experiment with sixteen treatments was established during maize growth periods, including CK (non-inoculating AMF species), inoculating single AMF treatment, two AMF mixed treatments, three AMF mixed treatments, and four AMF mixed treatments. The maize grain yield, plant biomass and their P and K accumulation were analyzed. 【Result】Compared with CK, the presence of each type of AMF species could increase maize grain yield and their P and K accumulation. Compared with CK, the presence of A, B, C and D increased maize grain yield by 57.9%, 26.9%, 40.5% and 32.9%, respectively, increased the maize grain P accumulation by 77.8%, 48.2%, 26.2% and 75.8%, respectively and increased maize grain K accumulation by 85.5%, 62.1%, 59.0% and 63.5%, respectively. With AMF inoculant diversities increasing, the average values of maize grain yield showed an increasing tendency, with four AMF mixed treatments>three AMF mixed treatments>two AMF mixed treatments>single AMF treatments, and the average grain yield of four AMF mixed treatments was 12.3% higher than that of the single AMF treatments. The tendency of grain P accumulation among the AMF diversity treatments was two AMF mixed treatments>four AMF mixed treatments>three AMF mixed treatments>single AMF treatments, and the average grain P accumulation for two AMF mixed treatments was 23.2% higher than that of single AMF treatments. However, there was no significant difference of grain K accumulation among AMF diversity treatments. 【Conclusion】In acidic soil, the inoculation of different AMF species could significantly increase maize grain yield and their P and K accumulation, and the effects of Funneliformis mosseae was best on improving maize grain yield and their P and K accumulation among four AMF species. The increase of AMF inoculant diversities could significantly improve maize grain yield and their P accumulation, while the four mixed AMF showed a better effect on grain yield, and on grain nutrient uptake for two mixed AMF. All of these indicated that, according to the purposes of high grain yield or high grain quality in production, the suitable types of AMF species should be selected to inoculate their host, and the mix of different types of AMF species should matched reasonably.

Key words: arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, inoculant diversity, maize yield, phosphorus accumulation, potassium accumulation

张晨曦, 田明慧, 杨硕, 杜嘉琪, 何堂庆, 仇云鹏, 张学林. 酸性土壤中丛枝菌根真菌菌剂多样性对玉米产量及其磷钾吸收的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(15): 2899-2910.

ZHANG ChenXi, TIAN MingHui, YANG Shuo, DU JiaQi, HE TangQing, QIU YunPeng, ZHANG XueLin. Effects of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Inoculant Diversity on Yield, Phosphorus and Potassium Uptake of Maize in Acidic Soil[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(15): 2899-2910.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.15.003

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2022/V55/I15/2899

图/表 6

表1

图1

表2

2019和2020年不同AMF处理对玉米籽粒、茎、叶、其他和根生物量的影响"

处理 Treatment	籽粒 Grain (g/plant)		茎 Stem (g/plant)		叶 Leaf (g/plant)		其他 Other parts (g/plant)		根 Root (g/plant)
处理 Treatment	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
CK	57.9±1.5k	74.0±0.2b	65.1±0.2b	74.5±1.3d	35.5±0.4c	45.9±0.2e	23.9±1.2b	27.7±3.0b	24.9±0.3a	30.5±0.9b
A	110.5±1.8a	97.8±1.6a	70.3±0.1ab	79.1±0.4cd	40.7±0.6abc	56.0±0.2a	24.6±0.2ab	33.7±2.8ab	25.7±1.0a	40.6±0.8a
B	81.6±3.4ij	93.6±2.1ab	69.1±2.4ab	80.5±2.5bcd	37.3±2.7bc	51.8±0.5bcd	25.8±0.5ab	31.7±1.3ab	25.3±0.9a	40.4±0.1a
C	82.9±1.0ij	84.4±7.3ab	73.2±4.3ab	87.5±4.7abc	42.8±1.4ab	52.4±0.6bc	27.7±0.6ab	32.9±2.2ab	25.5±0.9a	38.6±1.9a
D	96.0±1.7cdef	89.4±8.3ab	71.4±1.8ab	83.7±4.9bcd	42.1±1.0ab	48.8±0.4de	24.8±1.0ab	32.4±1.2ab	25.1±1.4a	38.1±2.7a
A+B	101.8±0.1bcd	86.8±7.8ab	73.4±1.8ab	91.0±1.6ab	41.6±0.5ab	51.5±1.6bcd	27.5±0.5ab	32.3±2.1ab	26.1±0.8a	37.8±3.8a
A+C	87.7±2.3fghi	95.7±5.3ab	66.5±1.7ab	81.8±2.7bcd	41.9±0.9ab	51.4±1.0bcd	28.0±1.3ab	29.2±1.8ab	25.6±0.4a	42.4±1.9a
A+D	106.6±0.9ab	92.7±1.8ab	70.4±2.2ab	88.1±3.3abc	44.5±4.1a	52.1±1.4bcd	29.2±1.3a	32.1±2.3ab	25.3±0.9a	41.4±3.8a
B+C	85.3±1.4ghij	91.3±3.0ab	75.3±1.1ab	83.0±3.7bcd	41.4±1.3abc	49.5±0.9cd	29.0±0.8ab	34.2±2.2ab	26.1±0.4a	40.6±2.1a
B+D	78.6±4.7j	102.4±9.6a	76.5±8.2a	87.8±3.4abc	40.2±1.1abc	53.6±1.5ab	26.2±1.8ab	35.6±2.7a	26.3±0.6a	39.8±3.3a
C+D	85.6±5.8ghij	98.0±7.4a	71.5±2.8ab	89.1±5.2abc	38.7±1.2abc	52.5±0.6bc	25.4±2.2ab	33.5±2.2ab	25.2±0.8a	45.5±1.6a
A+B+C	98.3±2.2bcde	91.0±1.9ab	72.4±3.0ab	94.5±2.5a	41.0±1.6abc	52.9±1.2abc	26.6±3.1ab	31.4±1.3ab	25.4±0.2a	41.3±2.3a
A+B+D	93.5±2.6defg	99.4±9.4a	72.0±0.8ab	85.2±1.1abc	42.8±0.9ab	51.7±1.1bcd	27.2±1.5ab	31.7±3.1ab	27.1±1.1a	43.1±0.9a
A+C+D	92.0±1.5efgh	92.6±11.2ab	69.3±3.3ab	87.2±3.3abc	40.2±2.7abc	51.2±1.8bcd	27.3±1.6ab	29.6±2.0ab	24.7±0.2a	40.5±3.1a
B+C+D	83.9±2.8hij	96.6±9.0a	68.8±3.3ab	88.0±3.0abc	42.1±2.1ab	51.6±1.5bcd	26.6±2.2ab	30.4±1.2ab	25.6±1.2a	40.9±2.7a
A+B+C+D	103.0±3.7abc	103.7±2.3a	70.6±1.6ab	86.5±0.5abc	40.9±0.5abc	49.8±0.7cd	28.5±1.0ab	29.6±2.5ab	24.9±0.6a	40.7±1.3a

表2

表3

2019和2020年不同AMF处理对玉米籽粒、茎、叶、其他和根磷累积量的影响"

处理 Treatment	籽粒 Grain (mg/plant)		茎 Stem (mg/plant)		叶 Leaf (mg/plant)		其他 Other parts (mg/plant)		根 Root (mg/plant)
处理 Treatment	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
CK	251.2±5.7i	312.6±2.8c	124.3±2.0b	178.8±1.6ghi	83.0±1.4e	131.7±1.6h	74.7±5.2d	101.5±12.6b	52.2±1.4e	79.3±3.2f
A	506.1±7.2cd	496.2±7.0ab	162.2±13.1a	212.2±4.1defg	113.4±4.4d	215.4±7.0ab	76.9±1.3cd	123.7±7.9ab	54.5±2.8e	104.9±3.2e
B	493.2±20.6cdef	497.8±10.1ab	164.4±11.1a	155.0±8.0i	148.1±10.2ab	201.5±5.0bcde	92.0±3.9abcd	119.7±5.6ab	68.7±4.3d	120.0±3.4de
C	410.4±3.9gh	425.5±46.5bc	150.1±7.1ab	215.5±9.3def	117.9±2.5cd	164.2±5.3g	94.0±1.6abcd	120.9±7.3ab	77.0±4.0cd	125.9±2.8cde
D	370.1±10.3h	341.6±30.2c	171.6±6.3a	167.1±15.3hi	142.4±2.5abc	184.4±2.9defg	92.9±6.5abcd	128.6±5.1ab	73.3±4.7cd	124.4±8.7de
A+B	637.2±8.9a	561.4±45.7ab	166.7±3.5a	243.8±10.2abcd	136.7±3.5abc	189.4±9.1def	98.3±7.2abc	117.9±7.3ab	79.3±5.0bcd	133.1±13.2abcde
A+C	500.1±17.2cde	564.3±55.9ab	145.5±4.9ab	198.3±11.3efgh	140.3±3.0abcd	192.4±3.6cdef	99.6±4.1ab	112.2±6.8ab	76.3±5.3cd	130.3±8.4bcde
A+D	589.3±4.0ab	525.3±6.0ab	178.2±5.3a	188.8±2.3fghi	166.8±21.5a	203.5±7.6bcd	109.4±2.6a	128.6±11.3ab	68.6±1.1d	123.7±15.1de
B+C	517.8±6.8cd	571.1±23.6ab	159.1±4.4a	199.4±10.4efgh	126.4±3.3abc	187.4±7.7def	108.7±3.3a	134.8±7.4a	69.7±1.1d	119.3±6.1de
B+D	458.0±2.9defg	619.3±92.6a	172.6±25.2a	233.2±19.2bcde	134.9±2.7abc	212.3±11.1abc	92.2±6.5abcd	134.8±11.2a	70.1±1.4d	110.3±8.1e
C+D	422.6±39.1fgh	576.8±56.3ab	176.5±10.0a	265.0±16.7ab	133.7±11.0abc	180.3±4.1efg	94.2±9.6abcd	132.2±12.0ab	76.0±2.7cd	120.2±2.3de
A+B+C	512.8±27.6cd	483.7±33.3ab	176.2±9.2a	242.4±9.2abcd	126.3±4.0abc	202.6±2.2bcd	106.5±13.9a	133.3±7.5a	97.4±4.8a	160.8±12.4a
A+B+D	490.1±50.5cdef	496.2±67.0ab	163.7±2.6a	217.3±1.7cdef	140.9±17.7abcd	189.5±4.1def	106.4±4.4a	131.9±12.0ab	72.2±3.1cd	157.5±5.9ab
A+C+D	605.6±17.7a	621.4±65.2a	175.4±12.9a	271.7±15.7a	121.3±2.3abc	184.3±10.9defg	107.8±7.0a	120.5±8.7ab	80.6±1.5bcd	141.9±10.7abcd
B+C+D	431.0±18.7efgh	503.8±49.3ab	167.5±5.5a	253.1±10.8abc	128.6±6.1abc	228.4±7.3a	84.0±9.8bcd	112.9±8.9ab	89.7±6.6ab	153.7±14.3abc
A+B+C+D	532.5±36.3bc	546.0±39.2ab	160.5±8.8a	231.5±11.1bcde	126.7±2.8abc	173.7±1.7fg	101.4±5.0ab	114.5±11.2ab	84.7±4.2bc	152.8±4.0abc

表3

表4

2019和2020年不同AMF处理对玉米籽粒、茎、叶、其他和根钾累积量的影响"

处理 Treatment	籽粒 Grain (mg/plant)		茎 Stem (mg/plant)		叶 Leaf (mg/plant)		其他 Other parts (mg/plant)		根 Root (mg/plant )
处理 Treatment	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
CK	183.8±8.8f	248.1±16.7d	218.0±15.1g	274.7±12.8f	144.3±3.8c	222.5±10.2e	80.0±4.3c	100.8±13.6d	68.0±4.2c	87.1±4.3e
A	429.7±14.9a	371.5±16.1abc	273.5±17.0defg	361.1±12.5e	190.8±8.7ab	330.9±0.7a	82.5±1.9c	131.3±7.4abcd	74.6±5.0bc	124.5±2.9cd
B	316.8±8.6cde	389.3±15.1abc	339.2±28.6abcd	424.7±23.5bcde	200.1±15.4ab	280.2±9.5cd	96.7±4.0bc	124.1±7.3abcd	94.7±7.1ab	148.9±4.4abcd
C	307.2±16.1de	393.0±41.0abc	391.4±22.2a	472.0±48.7abcd	198.6±9.5ab	275.1±7.4cd	119.2±2.6ab	151.2±7.9a	85.6±9.7abc	115.4±10.0de
D	347.1±4.3bcd	339.6±31.7c	289.4±19.0cdef	420.1±8.3bcde	200.0±17.8ab	278.0±6.3cd	94.6±9.4bc	128.8±5.8abcd	89.5±9.9abc	148.7±7.3abcd
A+B	368.7±9.1b	371.0±39.4abc	331.6±18.6abcde	471.8±16.5abcd	217.1±2.4a	303.4±9.3abc	118.4±1.9ab	149.2±13.6ab	87.4±6.7abc	131.4±19.8bcd
A+C	308.9±5.4de	341.5±21.4c	338.1±3.1abcde	482.4±32.2abc	210.5±5.1ab	290.6±11.8bcd	125.9±5.2a	141.4±8.8abc	83.2±3.6abc	141.1±1.5abcd
A+D	357.6±12.2bc	352.1±16.3abc	271.3±9.6efg	409.5±20.1cde	206.8±25.1ab	280.4±12.7cd	113.5±4.5ab	139.1±12.9abc	85.0±6.6abc	148.4±11.6abcd
B+C	347.2±18.6bcd	443.3±31.8a	331.9±22.7abcde	385.0±9.5e	212.2±9.3ab	286.0±10.5bcd	113.1±10.2ab	129.9±8.4abcd	97.4±1.8a	158.6±5.1abc
B+D	284.7±17.9e	435.0±34.6ab	350.8±32.6abc	465.5±11.9abcd	198.8±5.2ab	294.3±9.9bc	100.9±11.2abc	135.3±10.2abcd	98.3±8.6a	154.0±7.6abc
C+D	277.9±9.7e	369.3±10.2abc	369.4±12.4ab	535.4±35.7a	173.7±9.0bc	275.0±16.0cd	95.8±11.7bc	131.7±14.7abcd	89.3±3.8abc	168.2±16.8a
A+B+C	372.1±22.1b	441.0±12.1a	313.6±19.1bcde	485.7±12.9ab	218.2±11.0a	317.0±2.9ab	95.3±16.2bc	122.3±6.2abcd	92.7±3.7ab	157.5±16.1abc
A+B+D	362.3±12.9bc	343.0±32.4c	311.5±8.1bcde	408.2±24.4de	190.1±3.7ab	256.6±11.2d	103.4±3.4abc	125.9±4.4abcd	93.4±9.8ab	159.7±9.3abc
A+C+D	308.1±3.1de	361.9±41.9abc	274.7±38.3defg	382.6±16.1e	180.1±15.3abc	278.2±15.4cd	101.4±3.4abc	115.8±8.8bcd	87.9±7.2abc	159.1±15.8abc
B+C+D	289.7±24.2e	354.1±26.6abc	234.2±10.6fg	404.7±14.9de	212.1±19.0ab	277.1±5.0cd	93.5±4.1bc	112.0±6.8cd	93.4±3.9ab	151.4±9.2abc
A+B+C+D	373.4±22.1b	345.5±6.3bc	325.1±2.6bcde	458.7±9.8bcd	217.8±2.9a	299.3±10.2abc	114.2±8.5ab	127.1±16.8abcd	98.5±2.2a	163.7±4.8ab

表4

图2

参考文献 51

[1]	CHANG S H, SHU H Y, TONG Y P, QIN G Y, LI B, LI Z S. Isolation, function and expression analysis of two wheat phosphate transporter genes. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2004, 24(10): 1779-1785.
[2]	GARCIA K, ZIMMERMANN S D. The role of mycorrhizal associations in plant potassium nutrition. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2014, 5: 337.
[3]	WANG Y, WU W H. Potassium transport and signaling in higher plants. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 2013, 64: 451-476. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120153
[4]	GUO J H, LIU X J, ZHANG Y, SHEN J L, HAN W X, ZHANG W F, CHRISTIE P, GOULDING K W T, VITOUSEK P M, ZHANG F S. Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science, 2010, 327(19): 1008-1010. doi: 10.1126/science.1182570
[5]	HUANG P, ZHANG J B, ZHU A N, ZHANG C Z. Acid and alkali buffer capacity of typical fluvor-aquic soil in Huang-Huai-Hai Plain. Agricultural Science in China, 2009, 8(11): 1378-1383. doi: 10.1016/S1671-2927(08)60350-8
[6]	王庆峰, 姜昕, 马鸣超, 关大伟, 赵百锁, 魏丹, 曹凤明, 李力, 李俊. 长期施用氮肥和磷肥对东北黑土丛枝菌根真菌群落组成的影响. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51(17): 3315-3324.
	WANG Q F, JIANG X, MA M C, GUAN D W, ZHAO B S, WEI D, CAO F M, LI L, LI J. Influence of long-term nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi community in mollisols of northeast China. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2018, 51(17): 3315-3324. (in Chinese)
[7]	YAN Z N, MA T, GUO S X, LIU R J, LI M. Leaf anatomy, photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence of lettuce as influenced by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi under high temperature stress. Scientia Horticulturae, 2021, 280: 109933. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2021.109933
[8]	HU J L, LIN X G, WANG J H, DAI J, CUI X C, CHEN R R, ZHANG J B. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus enhances crop yield and P-uptake of maize (Zea mays L.): A field case study on a sandy loam soil as affected by long-term P-deficiency fertilization. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2009, 41(12): 2460-2465. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.09.002
[9]	张学林, 李晓立, 何堂庆, 张晨曦, 田明慧, 吴梅, 周亚男, 郝晓峰, 杨青华. 丛枝菌根真菌对玉米籽粒产量和氮素吸收的影响. 作物学报, 2021, 47(8): 1603-1615. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2021.03050
	ZHANG X L, LI X L, HE T Q, ZHANG C X, TIAN M H, WU M, ZHOU Y N, HAO X F, YANG Q H. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on grain yield and nitrogen uptake in maize. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2021, 47(8): 1603-1615. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2021.03050
[10]	COUTINHO E S, BEIROZ W, BARBOSA M, XAVIER J H D, FERNANDES G W. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the rhizosphere of saplings used in the restoration of the rupestrian grassland. Ecological Restoration, 2019, 37(3): 152-162. doi: 10.3368/er.37.3.152
[11]	DOROSTKAR V, AFYUNI M, KHOSHGOFTARMANESH A H, MOSADDEGHI M R, REJALI F. Subcritical soil hydrophobicity in the presence of native and exotic arbuscular mycorrhizal species at different soil salinity levels. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 2016, 62(3): 429-443. doi: 10.1080/03650340.2015.1051471
[12]	ZHANG L, XU M G, LIU Y, ZHANG F S, HODGE A, FENG G. Carbon and phosphorus exchange may enable cooperation between an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus and a phosphate-solubilizing bacterium. New Phytologist, 2016, 210(3): 1022-1032. doi: 10.1111/nph.13838
[13]	KALDORF M, KUHN A J, SCHRÖDER W H, HILDEBRANDT U, BOTHE H. Selective element deposits in maize colonized by a heavy metal tolerance conferring arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus. Journal of Plant Physiology, 1999, 154(5): 718-728. doi: 10.1016/S0176-1617(99)80250-8
[14]	ESTRADA B, AROCA R, MAATHUIS F J M, BAREA J M, RUIZ-LOZANO J M. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi native from a Mediterranean saline area enhance maize tolerance to salinity through improved ion homeostasis. Plant Cell and Environment, 2013, 36(10): 1771-1782. doi: 10.1111/pce.12082
[15]	WANG X X, HOFFLAND E, FENG G, KUYPER T W. Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis increases phosphorus uptake and productivity of mixtures of maize varieties compared to monocultures. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2020, 57(11): 2203-2211. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13739
[16]	LIU S J, XU J, HUANG H, ZHU J N, TANG J J, CHEN X. Changes in the mycorrhizal fungal community in host roots over five host generations under low and high phosphorus conditions. Plant and Soil, 2020, 456(1/2): 27-41. doi: 10.1007/s11104-020-04694-y
[17]	DOBO B, ASEFA F, ASFAW Z. Diversity and abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi under different plant and soil properties in Sidama, southern Ethiopia. Agroforestry Systems, 2018, 92(1): 91-101. doi: 10.1007/s10457-016-0017-x
[18]	AKAY A, YORGANCILAR M, ATALAY E. Effects of different types of mycorrhiza on the development and the elemental content of lupin (lupinus albus L.). Journal of Elementology, 2016, 21(2): 327-335.
[19]	ZHU X Q, WANG C Y, CHEN H, TANG M. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on photosynthesis, carbon content, and calorific value of black locust seedlings. Photosynthetica, 2014, 52(2): 247-252. doi: 10.1007/s11099-014-0031-z
[20]	SMITH F A, JAKOBSEN I, SMITH S E. Spatial differences in acquisition of soil phosphate between two arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in symbiosis with Medicago truncatula. New Phytologist, 2000, 147(2): 357-366. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00695.x
[21]	JOHNSON D, VANDENKOORNHUYSE P J, LEAKE J R, GILBERT L, BOOTH R E, GRIME J P, YOUNG P W, READ D J. Plant communities affect arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal diversity and community composition in grassland microcosms. New Phytologist, 2004, 161(2): 503-515. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00938.x
[22]	JANSA J, SMITH F A, SMITH S E. Are there benefits of simultaneous root colonization by different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi? New Phytologist, 2008, 177(3): 779-789. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02294.x
[23]	CHEN S C, ZHAO H J, ZOU C C, LI Y S, CHEN Y F, WANG Z H, JIANG Y, LIU A R, ZHAO P Y, WANG M M, AHAMMED G J. Combined inoculation with multiple arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi improves growth, nutrient uptake and photosynthesis in cucumber seedlings. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2017, 8: 2516. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02516
[24]	EDATHIL T T, MANIAN S, UDAIYAN K. Interaction of multiple VAM fungal species on root colonization, plant growth and nutrient status of tomato seedlings (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 1996, 59(1/2): 63-68. doi: 10.1016/0167-8809(96)01040-7
[25]	DAFT M J, HOGARTH B G. Competitive interactions amongst four species of Glomus on maize and onion. Transactions of the British Mycological Society, 1983, 80(2): 339-345. doi: 10.1016/S0007-1536(83)80019-9
[26]	KÖHL L, VAN DER HEIJDEN M G A. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal species differ in their effect on nutrient leaching. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2016, 94: 191-199. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.11.019
[27]	XU H W, LU Y, TONG S Y. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence of maize seedlings under salt stress. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 2018, 30(3): 199-204.
[28]	COSME M, WURST S. Interactions between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, rhizobacteria, soil phosphorus and plant cytokinin deficiency change the root morphology, yield and quality of tobacco. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2013, 57: 436-443. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.09.024
[29]	WANG G Z, YE C C, ZHANG J L, KOZIOL L, BEVER J D, LI X L. Asymmetric facilitation induced by inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi leads to overyielding in maize/faba bean intercropping. Journal of Plant Interactions, 2019, 14(1): 10-20. doi: 10.1080/17429145.2018.1550218
[30]	SAWERS R J H, SVANE S F, QUAN C, GRØNLUND M, WOZNIAK B, GEBRESELASSIE M N, GONZÁLEZ-MUÑOZ E, CHÁVEZ MONTES R A, BAXTER I, GOUDET J, JAKOBSEN I, PASZKOWSKI U. Phosphorus acquisition efficiency in arbuscular mycorrhizal maize is correlated with the abundance of root-external hyphae and the accumulation of transcripts encoding PHT1 phosphate transporters. New Phytologist, 2017, 214(2): 632-643. doi: 10.1111/nph.14403
[31]	KUMAR A, SURI V K, CHOUDHARY A K, YADAV A, KAPOOR R, SANDAL S, DASS A. Growth behavior, nutrient harvest index, and soil fertility in okra-pea cropping system as influenced by AM fungi, applied phosphorus, and irrigation regimes in Himalayan acidic alfisol. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2015, 46(17): 2212-2233. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2015.1069323
[32]	LIU M H, SUN J, LI Y, XIAO Y. Nitrogen fertilizer enhances growth and nutrient uptake of Medicago sativa inoculated with Glomus tortuosum grown in Cd-contaminated acidic soil. Chemosphere, 2017, 167: 204-211. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.09.145
[33]	HART M M, READER R J. Taxonomic basis for variation in the colonization strategy of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytologist, 2002, 153(2): 335-344. doi: 10.1046/j.0028-646X.2001.00312.x
[34]	NEWSHAM K K, FITTER A H, WATKINSON A R. Multi- functionality and biodiversity in arbuscular mycorrhizas. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 1995, 10(10): 407-411. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89157-0
[35]	XU H W, LU Y, ZHU X C. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhiza on osmotic adjustment and photosynthetic physiology of maize seedlings in black soils region of northeast China. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology, 2016, 59: e16160392.
[36]	CHAN W F, LI H, WU F Y, WU S C, WONG M H. Arsenic uptake in upland rice inoculated with a combination or single arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2013, 262: 1116-1122. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.08.020
[37]	PARVIN S, VAN GEEL M, YEASMIN T, VERBRUGGEN E, HONNAY O. Effects of single and multiple species inocula of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on the salinity tolerance of a Bangladeshi rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivar. Mycorrhiza, 2020, 30(4): 431-444. doi: 10.1007/s00572-020-00957-9
[38]	ORTAS I, SARI N, AKPINAR C, YETISIR H. Screening mycorrhiza species for plant growth, P and Zn uptake in pepper seedling grown under greenhouse conditions. Scientia Horticulturae, 2011, 128(2): 92-98. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2010.12.014
[39]	BEVER J D. Host-specificity of AM fungal population growth rates can generate feedback on plant growth. Plant and Soil, 2002, 244(1/2): 281-290. doi: 10.1023/A:1020221609080
[40]	PEARSON J N, JAKOBSEN I. The relative contribution of hyphae and roots to phosphorus uptake by arbuscular mycorrhizal plants, measured by dual labelling with ³²P and ³³P. New Phytologist, 1993, 124: 489-494. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1993.tb03840.x
[41]	GANGE A C, BROWN V K, APLIN D M. Ecological specificity of arbuscular mycorrhizae: Evidence from foliar- and seed-feeding insects. Ecology, 2005, 86(3): 603-611. doi: 10.1890/04-0967
[42]	僧珊珊. 气候变化对玉米生产的影响与应对措施模拟研究-以河南为例[D]. 中国农业科学院, 2019.
	SENG S S. Study on simulation of climatic factors on potential productivity and cultivation measures-A case study on Henan province[D]. Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2019. (in Chinese)
[43]	TAI A P K, VAL MARTIN M, HEALD C L. Threat to future global food security from climate change and ozone air pollution. Nature Climate Change, 2014, 4(9): 817-821. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2317
[44]	杨平, 张丽娟, 赵艳霞, 姜蓝齐, 乔赛男, 张晓慧. 黄淮海地区夏玉米干旱风险评估与区划. 中国生态农业学报, 2015, 23(1): 110-118.
	YANG P, ZHANG L J, ZHAO Y X, JIANG L Q, QIAO S N, ZHANG X H. Risk assessment and zoning of drought for summer maize in the Huang-Huai-Hai region. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2015, 23(1): 110-118. (in Chinese)
[45]	TILMAN D, KNOPS J, WEDIN D, REICH P, RITCHIE M, SIEMANN E. The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science, 1997, 277(5330): 1330-1332.
[46]	CROSSAY T, MAJOREL C, REDECKER D, GENSOUS S, MEDEVIELLE V, DURRIEU G, CAVALOC Y, AMIR H. Is a mixture of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi better for plant growth than single-species inoculants? Mycorrhiza, 2019, 29(4): 325-339. doi: 10.1007/s00572-019-00898-y
[47]	WALLER L P, HAHN P G, MARON J L, LEKBERG Y. Trait differences in responses to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi are stronger and more consistent than fixed differences among populations of Asclepias speciosa. American Journal of Botany, 2018, 105(2): 207-214. doi: 10.1002/ajb2.1038
[48]	HART M M, FORSYTHE J, OSHOWSKI B, BÜCKING H, JANSA J, TOBY KIERS E. Hiding in a crowd-does diversity facilitate persistence of a low-quality fungal partner in the mycorrhizal symbiosis? Symbiosis, 2013, 59: 47-56. doi: 10.1007/s13199-012-0197-8
[49]	ENGELMOER D J P, BEHM J E, TOBY KIERS E. Intense competition between arbuscular mycorrhizal mutualists in an in vitro root microbiome negatively affects total fungal abundance. Molecular Ecology, 2014, 23(6): 1584-1593. doi: 10.1111/mec.12451
[50]	JONES M D, SMITH S E. Exploring functional definitions of mycorrhizas: Are mycorrhizas always mutualisms? Canadian Journal of Botany, 2004, 82(8): 1089-1109. doi: 10.1139/b04-110
[51]	ZHOU J C, CHAI X F, ZHANG L, GEORGE T S, WANG F, FENG G. Different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi cocolonizing on a single plant root system recruit distinct microbiomes. mSystems, 2020, 5(6): e00929-20.