Next Article in Journal
Plastic Contaminant Detection in Aerial Imagery of Cotton Fields Using Deep Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Technology of Automatic Evaluation of Dairy Herd Fatness
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Combined Application of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) and Nitrogen Fertilizer Alters the Physicochemical Soil Properties, Nitrogen Uptake, and Rice Yield in a Polybag Experiment

1
College of Agriculture, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China
2
Key Laboratory of Crop Cultivation and Physiology, Education Department of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China
3
Guangxi Key Laboratory of Agro-Environment and Agric-Products Safety, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(7), 1364; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13071364
Submission received: 7 June 2023 / Revised: 3 July 2023 / Accepted: 4 July 2023 / Published: 9 July 2023

Abstract

:
Excessive application of nitrogen fertilizer during rice cultivation leads to progressive soil contamination in the long term and increases production costs. An alternative to reduce over fertilization is to partially replace the fertilizer with microbes that promote nutrition and growth, such as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). We investigated the combination of four different rates of AMF (M): (M0: 0 g polybag−1, M1: 15 g polybag−1, M2: 30 g polybag−1, and M3: 45 g polybag−1) and three rates of nitrogen (N) fertilizer: (N0: 0 kg N ha−1, N1: 90 kg N ha−1, N2: 180 kg N ha−1) on Trisakti rice cultivar cultivated in polybag. Our findings indicate that the combination of 45 g AMF polybag−1 and 180 kg N ha−1 decreased soil bulk density by 38.02% and 37.24%, increased soil pH by 14.81% and 14.95%, soil porosity by 60.68% and 61.09%, soil organic matter by 28.62% and 30.46%, total N by 92.59% and 89.66%, available phosphorus by 30.12% and 29.85%, available potassium by 3.75% and 4.01%, rice plant height by 19.19% and 19.79%, tiller number by 25.27% and 26.08%, SPAD by 20.71% and 20.62%, flag leaf area by 107.76% and 108.02%, panicle length by 49.72% and 52.31%, panicle number by 67.44% and 72.35%, 1000-grain weight by 30.70% and 32.44%, root dry matter by 54.34% and 53.69%, shoot dry matter by 26.08% and 28.26%, root length by 54.68% and 56.44%, root volume by 42.73% and 43.37%, and N uptake by 107.93% and 108.06% compared to control during the early and late seasons, respectively. Conclusively, the combined application of AMF and N fertilizer increased the physiochemical properties, rice growth, rice productivity, and N uptake compared to AMF alone, N fertilizer alone, and the control treatment.

1. Introduction

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is an essential food crop worldwide and a dietary staple for about 50% of the world’s population [1,2]. Global rice consumption is estimated to increase from 480 million tons (mt) of milled rice in 2014 to nearly 550 mt by 2030, caused by population and economic growth [3]. Farmers have continuously increased their use of chemical fertilizers to enhance rice production [4]. Chemical fertilizers, especially nitrogen fertilizer, are an essential abiotic component of agricultural output [5,6]. Nitrogen (N) is a crucial macronutrient for plants, and its availability is a determinant of plant productivity [7]. Applying N fertilizer has become an important strategy to increase crop yield in intensive agricultural systems worldwide [8]. In order to increase production, rice farmers apply massive amounts of N fertilizer, yet only 20 to 50% of the N is actually absorbed by the crop since soil N availability often limits yield in the majority of agricultural cropping systems [9,10]. The N fertilizer applied in rice fields that escapes into the surrounding environment leads to reduced N use efficiency (NUE) and significant ecological issues [11,12].
NUE is a recognized metric used for assessing N management [13]. Improving NUE of agricultural crops has been used as a method to alleviate the effects of N fertilizer on surrounding water, air, and ecosystems, and to reduce costs associated with excessive fertilizer inputs, as well as to improve growth and productivity of crops [14,15]. Langholtz et al. discovered that increasing NUE by 20% can save USD 743 m yr−1 and reduce N loadings in freshwaters by 5.7%, and the N reductions are estimated to be worth USD 15.3 to 136.7 million yr−1 in the US [16]. Excessive use of N fertilizer causes some environmental problems, including soil acidification, groundwater contamination, greenhouse gas emission, and eutrophication of surface water [17,18,19,20]. New approaches to increase yield and decrease the quantity of N applied are required in order to achieve high crop production and high NUE under well-fertilized circumstances [21]. The creation of new fertilizers, enhancement of crop NUE, substitution of chemical fertilizers, and reduction in pollution are important directions for sustainable agricultural development [22]. Numerous N management strategies, such as deep placement and numerous split treatments, can increase rice production and NUE while lowering N losses [23,24,25,26]. However, these methods are either constrained by a lack of technology or demand more labor and expertise of N management than conventional methods [27].
On the other hand, there are microbes in the rhizosphere that interact with rice roots [28]. Rhizospheres play a significant role in the soil environment, plant growth and productivity, plant health, nutrient uptake, and heavy metal tolerance [29,30]. However, numerous factors, including the kind of fertilizer used, how it is applied, how much is used, and how frequently it is applied, frequently have an impact on the activities of soil bacterial communities [31,32]. In Xishuangbanna (China), Pang et al. identified bacteria and fungi from roots of rice. Based on study of the 16S rRNA and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) gene sequences, there are 462 endophytic and rhizospheric isolates (125 fungi and 337 bacteria), which were distributed among 43 genera [33]. The interaction between rhizosphere bacteria and fungi significantly increased rice production and decreased chemical fertilizers [34]. The contributing methods are: (1) creating siderophores and enzymes to increase the solubility of soil nutrients; (2) producing phytohormones; (3) regulating pathogens and reducing the negative impacts of stress; and (4) collaborating with other soil microorganisms [35,36,37,38].
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are essential fungi of soil microorganisms in the phylum Glomeromycota that form mutualistic symbioses with plant roots [39]. AMF have many functions in symbiotic systems, such as promoting plant growth, increasing yield, improving soil physicochemical properties, stimulating flowering, enhancing drought and disease resistance, boosting heavy-metal tolerance, improving the root physiology, and modifying microbial community structure and diversity in the rhizosphere [40,41,42,43]. Numerous studies have demonstrated that after inoculation with AMF, crops considerably improve their ability to absorb N, potassium (K), phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) [44,45,46,47]. Applying AMF improves root development and the growth and productivity of wetland grasses, tomatoes, and rice [48,49,50,51]. Most studies have focused on the ability of AMF to absorb phosphate nutrients, so many researchers have combined AMF and phosphate fertilizer to examine the relationship between AMF, soil phosphate availability, and phosphate uptake by plants [52,53,54]. The purpose of this research was to investigate the impact of the combined application of AMF and N fertilizer on the physicochemical soil properties, rice growth, rice productivity, and N uptake. We hypothesized that (1) AMF would increase the availability of N in the soil and improve the physical and chemical properties of the soil, and (2) the combination of AMF and N fertilizer would improve the growth and productivity of rice.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Location and Conditions

Experiments were conducted at an agricultural field in Pulo Kedep, Subulussalam, Aceh, Indonesia (02° 27′–03°00′, 97°44′–98°10′) during July–November (early season) and December–April (late season) 2022/2023. The annual average precipitation was 2308 mm. The mean maximum and minimum temperature in the early season ranges were 30.9–32.9 °C and 23.2–23.7 °C, respectively, while the mean maximum and minimum temperature in the late season ranges were 31–34 °C and 23–24.9 °C. The total quantities of rainfall during the early and late seasons were 985 mm and 1468 mm, respectively [55]. In this research, we used unsterile soil collected from Pulo Kedep Village (Ultisol; 0–20 cm). Figure 1 presents the total temperature, rainfall, and relative humidity during both seasons.

2.2. Experimental Design

Two experiments were performed with three replications and a complete randomized design. Rice was cultivated in polybags (40 cm × 40 cm) that contained 10 kg of soil with various doses of AMF and N fertilizer. We used Mycogrow as the AMF inoculum (produced by PT Agrofarm Nusa Raya), which contains five species of AMF (Glomus claroideum, Glomus fasciculatum, Funneliformis mosseae, Glomus etunicatum, Aucolospora rogusa). The polybags were routinely hydrated using drip irrigation from transplantation until maturity stage. The ‘Trisakti’ rice variety was grown in nurseries for 20 days, then transplanted to the polybags. The characteristics of Trisakti are presented in [56]. AMF was applied 1 day before transplanting. Four levels of AMF (M) were used in the treatments (0, 15, 30, and 45 g polybag−1) and three N fertilizer levels (0, 90, and 180 kg ha−1). These treatments were referred to as M0N0: 0 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1 (control), M0N1: 0 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, M0N2: 0 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1, M1N0: 15 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1, M1N1: 15 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, M1N2: 15 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1, M2N0: 30 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1, M2N1: 30 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, M2N2: 30 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1, M3N0: 45 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1, M3N1: 45 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, and M3N2: 45 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1. All treatments received a base dosage of urea fertilizer at a rate of 90 kg N ha−1 (1.13 g polybag−1) and a subsequent dose of urea fertilizer at rates of 50% at the tillering stage and 50% at the panicle initiation stage. KCl (potassium chloride) fertilizer was applied twice: 50% as a basal dose and 50% at the tillering stage at a rate of 240 kg K ha−1 (3.02 g polybag−1). SP-36 (super phosphate) fertilizer was treated once as a basal dose at a rate of 240 kg P ha−1 (3.02 g polybag−1) in all treatments. The Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture’s recommendations were used to determine the fertilizer dosages [57]. The harvest time in this research was 90 days after transplanting (DAT).

2.3. Analysis and Sampling

2.3.1. Biochar and Soil

Biochar that we applied was made from rice husk as described in [56]. To analyze physicochemical properties, soil samples were taken from each treatment throughout both seasons before and after the experiment. The physicochemical of soil properties including pH (potential hydrogen), soil organic matter (SOM), total nitrogen (TN), available phosphorus (AP), available potassium (AK), and soil bulk density (BD) were analyzed using soil nutrient analyzer equipment [58]. Determination the soil porosity (SP) was made with the following formula [59]:
S o i l   P o r o s i t y = ( 1 ( B u l k   D e n s i t y ÷ P a r t i c l e   D e n s i t y ) × 100 .

2.3.2. Rice Growth

We measured a number of growth factors, including plant height, number of tillers, chlorophyll, flowering day, and flag leaf area (FLA). At 3 to 8 weeks after planting, plant height was measured using a ruler from the stem base to the tallest leaf. The tiller number was examined by counting the number of plants that emerged from the main plant internode at 3–8 weeks after planting. The SPAD meter procedure and method are described by Islam et al. [60]. The measurements were made in the polybags at three different growth stages (tillering, heading, and maturity). FLA measurements were taken on four leaves on each plant. FLA measurement was calculated at 70 DAT, using the following formula:
F L A = l e n g t h × w i d t h × c o n s t a n t ( 0.7 ) .

2.3.3. Root Morphology

Measurements were taken of the rice root morphology, such as root volume (RV) and root length (RL). RL was calculated by using a ruler to measure the distance between the stem base and the root tip. To measure RV, the rice plant roots were cut out and cleaned. To calculate the volume change, air-dried roots were put in a 1000 mL measuring cup with 250 mL of water. RV was computed using the formula below:
R V = V o l u m e 2 V o l u m e 1

2.3.4. Yield Components

The number of productive tillers on a rice plant was counted to calculate the panicle number, and a ruler was used to calculate the panicle length. The 1000-grain weight was determined with an analytical balance.

2.3.5. Root Dry Matter, Shoot Dry Matter, and N Uptake

For the purpose of determining the shoot and root dry weight, the roots and shoots were washed and baked at 70 °C for 48 h to achieve a constant weight [61]. Plant samples (roots, stems, and leaves) at the maturity stage were oven-dried at 70 °C for 48 h, and then dried sub-samples were ground to a powder. The micro-Kjeldahl method was used to calculate the N uptake [62].

2.4. Statistics

All data were tested and checked for normality before statistical analysis. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze all data experiments, and two-way ANOVA was used to analyze the interaction between AMF and N fertilizer. IBM SPSS Statistics 21 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used to analyze the data. Duncan’s test was used to analyze the least significant differences (p < 0.05). Sigma Plot 14.0 was used to prepare the figures and graphs.

3. Results

3.1. Soil Properties

The combination of AMF and N fertilizer significantly increased soil physicochemical properties (Table 1). The combined application M3N2 reduced soil BD by 38.02% and 37.24% compared to control during the early and late seasons, respectively, followed by M3N1 35.90% and 34.50%. Similarly, M3N2 increased SP by 60.68% and 61.09% with values of 67.17% and 67.41% compared to control treatment during the early and late seasons, respectively, followed by M3N1 55.23% and 55.63%. The combined application of AMF and N fertilizer had significant effect on soil chemical properties, including TN, AP, and AK in the both seasons. The M3N2 treatment increased TN by 14.81% and 14.95% and AK by 3.75% and 4.01% during the early and late seasons, respectively. M3N0 increased soil pH by 17.69% and 18.12%, and SOM by 34.21% and 36.42% during both seasons, respectively. M3N1 increased AP content by 30.78% and 30.83% compared to control during the early and late seasons, respectively, followed by M3N2 30.12% and 29.84%. AK influenced by the combination of AMF and N fertilizer. M3N2 increased AK by 3.75% and 4.01% compared to control in the both seasons, respectively.

3.2. Rice Growth

Based on the data analysis of two seasons of rice growth, we found that the combination of AMF and N fertilizer had substantial effects on plant height, number of tillers, FLA, flowering day, and chlorophyll content (SPAD). According to Figure 2, plant height was significantly affected by the combination of AMF and N, with the highest values presented in M3N2, M3N1, M2N2, and M2N1. M3N2 increased plant height by 19.19% and 19.79% compared to control during both seasons, respectively, followed by M3N1 17.49% and 18.17%, and M2N2 17.02% and 17.48%. The combined application of AMF and N also had a significant effect in enhancing the number of tillers (Figure 3); the higher the AMF dose, the higher the number of tillers. M3N2 improved the number of tillers by 25.27% and 26.08% compared to control during both seasons, respectively, followed by M3N1 23.38% and 23.62%. The flowering day data are presented in Figure 4. The combination of AMF and N fertilizer accelerated the day of flowering. M3N2 increased the day of flowering by 19.23% and 20.22% compared to control treatment during the both seasons, respectively, followed by M2N2 18.91% and 18.80%, and M3N1 17.90% and 19.14%. The M3N2, M2N2, and M3N1 treatments developed flowers 49 days after transplanting during both seasons. In our study, the higher the dose of AMF and N fertilizer, the faster the day of flowering. AMF at a rate of 45 g polybag−1 stimulated faster flowering than the 30 g polybag−1, 15 g polybag−1, or the control.
The effect of the combination of AMF and N fertilizer on FLA is presented in Figure 5. FLA was significantly affected by AMF and N fertilizer. M3N2 increased FLA by 107.76% and 108.02% compared to control during both seasons, respectively, followed by M2N2 103.67% and 103.68%, and M3N1 99.61% and 99.94%. The smallest FLA value occurred in M0N0, with 6.60 and 6.61 cm2 during both seasons, respectively, followed by M0N1 and M0N2. The interaction between AMF and N was significant (p < 0.05) for chlorophyll content (SPAD) during all three growth stages (tillering, heading, and maturity) in both seasons (Figure 6). The results showed that the M3N2 treatment resulted in an average increased SPAD by 20.71% and 20.62% during both seasons. N fertilizer improved the chlorophyll content (SPAD) value. N fertilizer at a rate of 180 kg N ha−1 resulted in a higher SPAD value than a rate of 90 kg N ha−1.

3.3. Root Morphology

Rice RL and RV were significantly different among the combined AMF and N fertilizer treatments during the early and late seasons (Table 2). The M3N2 treatment increased rice RL by 54.68% and 56.44% compared to control during both seasons, respectively, followed by M3N1 52.04% and 51.65%, and M2N2 38.78% and 41.82%. The M3N2 treatment enhanced RV by 42.73% and 43.37% compared to control during both seasons, respectively. Our findings indicate that different combinations of AMF and N had different significant effects on improving root morphology. RL was lowest in the M0N0 treatment (26.09 cm and 26.22 cm during the early and late seasons, respectively), followed by the M0N1 treatment (28 cm and 28.19 cm during the early and late seasons, respectively). The M0N0 treatment exhibited the lowest RV of rice with values of 27.43 cm3 and 27.72 cm3 during the early and late seasons, respectively), followed by the M0N1 treatment (28.91 cm3 and 29.26 cm3 during the early and late seasons, respectively).

3.4. Yield Components

The combination of AMF and N fertilizer had a significant effect on the yield components of rice, including panicle number, panicle length, and 1000-grain weight during both seasons (Table 3). The combined application of 45 g AMF and 180 kg N ha−1 improved panicle number by 67.44% and 72.35%, and panicle length by 49.72% and 52.31% compared to control during the early and late season, respectively, followed by M3N1 and M2N2. The M3N2 treatment had a higher average 1000-grain weight than the other treatments across the seasons, whereas no significant difference was detected in 1000-grain weight between the M3N2 and M3N1 treatments. M3N2 improved 1000-grain weight by 30.70% and 32.44% compared to control during both seasons, respectively, followed by M3N2 29.71% and 31.11%. Our findings show that all of the combined treatments with AMF and N fertilizer improved the yield components compared to AMF or N alone, and the control treatment.

3.5. Dry Matter and N Uptake

The results of N uptake and dry matter, including root dry matter and shoot dry matter, are presented in Table 4. Our results indicate that the combined application of AMF and N fertilizer significantly increased N uptake, root dry matter, and shoot dry matter. The M3N2 treatment improved N uptake by 107.93% and 108.06% compared to control during both seasons, respectively, followed by M3N1 97.50% and 96.35%. The combination of AMF with a 180 kg N ha−1 rate was more significant than the other treatments. Root dry matter and shoot dry matter showed that the combination of AMF and N significantly increased weight of root dry and shoot dry matter in rice. The M3N2 treatment increased root dry matter by 54.34% and 53.69% compared to control during both seasons, respectively, followed by M3N1 48.48% and 47.92%, and M2N2 46.41% and 46.61%. Shoot dry matter increased by 26.08% and 28.26% compared to control during both seasons, respectively, followed by M2N2 22.64% and 23.11%, and M3N1 21.80% and 23.62%. The minimum values of root dry matter and shoot dry matter were detected in the M0N0 and M0N1 treatments during the early season and the late season, respectively.

4. Discussion

4.1. Impact of the Combination of AMF and N Fertilizer on Physicochemical Properties of Soil

Soil is an essential component of the sustainable development of any crop. Based on our study, the combination of AMF and N fertilizer enhanced the soil physicochemical properties. The combined application of 45 g AMF polybag−1 and 180 kg N ha−1 had the greatest impact on improving soil properties. Adding AMF increased the soil pH, possibly because AMF improves the soil bacterial community and increases bacterial metabolites, which increase the soil pH [63,64]. Our findings indicate that a high N application decreased the pH of the soil. This was similar to other studies reporting that adding N decreases soil pH [65,66,67,68] because N fertilizer (urea) increases the nitrate concentration [69]. In this case, the continuous use of ammoniacal fertilizers tends to acidify the soil [70], particularly when applied at a high rate [71]. The combination of AMF and N fertilizer increased AP because AMF play a key role in improving P availability in the soil, and the metabolic activities of AMF produce alkaline phosphatases, which cleave substrates present in the soil and allow the phosphate to be accessible [64,69]. AMF colonization also contributes to P and K uptake by plants [72]. AMF improves SOM because many microbial components in the soil work synergistically with AMF, promoting growth and protecting the plants [71,72]. AMF communities affect the physicochemical environment of the rhizosphere and control various soil microbial interactions [73]. The combined application of AMF and N fertilizer increased total soil N because AMF increase microbial biomass N and plant biomass, thus reducing the availability of N substrates (NH4+ and NO3-) in the soil for N2O producers and decreasing N2O emissions [73,74,75].

4.2. Impact of the Combination of AMF and N Fertilizer on Rice Growth

The combination of AMF and N fertilizer significantly improved rice growth, including plant height, tiller number, FLA, chlorophyll SPAD, and day of flowering. Our results show that the combination of 45 g AMF polybag−1 and 180 kg N ha−1 increased plant height to the maximum. Similarly, previous studies found that AMF increased plant growth parameters of various crops [76,77,78,79,80,81]. This growth stimulation is linked to the fact that AMF extends the absorbing network beyond the nutrient depletion zones of the rhizosphere, which allows access to a larger volume of soil and AMF uptake of several major nutrients such as N and P [82,83,84], which improves the supply of nutrients [85,86,87,88,89,90,91]. This result also indicates that the high N level enhanced rice plant height. This was similar to a previous study reporting that increased plant height with a high N level is associated with greater availability of N in the soil and higher uptake by plants [92]. SPAD chlorophyll, tiller number, FLA, and day of flowering also increased under high N (180 kg ha−1). This result follows previous research indicating that N is important for the growth and development of the aboveground and belowground structures of the rice plant [93]. SPAD units reflect relative crop N status and yield level. Research by Jabboravo et al. showed that AMF significantly enhanced the total chlorophyll content by 36.6%. AMF can improve water use efficiency [94], which affects plant growth parameters such as shoot fresh weight, dry weight, leaf number, leaf area, and plant height [95]. On the other hand, the application of N fertilizer affects the growth of aerial components, including leaf area, as well as the synthesis of pigments in leaves responsible for photosynthesis [96], and N stimulates the tiller number and flowering time of rice [92,93,96].

4.3. Impact of the Combination of AMF and N Fertilizer on Root Morphology and Dry Matter

Root development is intricately connected to environmental factors in the soil including water, oxygen, temperature, and nutrients [97,98]. In this study, we found that the higher doses of AMF and N fertilizer increased RL and RV the most. This was consistent with previous research indicating that AMF significantly increased RL and RV by 37% and 65%, respectively [99]. Moreover, AMF promotes the development of lateral roots, which can produce finer roots, thus increasing the uptake of water and nutrients from the soil [100,101]. The enhanced root absorption results from the larger root system due to AMF hyphae, which increase the area beyond the root zone, thereby increasing the available volume of the soil solution [82,99,102]. Our results indicate that the combination of 45 g AMF polybag−1 and 180 kg N ha−1 (2.27 g polybag−1) increased the RL and RV of rice the most. This was consistent with previous research reporting that 4 g N pot−1 increases the number of roots, root diameter, RDM, and RV [103]. Root and shoot dry matter are also positively affected when AMF and N fertilizer are applied. Our results are similar to previous studies showing that the shoot and root biomass are significantly greater in AMF plants than in non-AMF plants [103,104,105,106,107,108]. Other researchers indicated that AMF enhanced the shoot and root development and noticeably elevated root colonization after 1 year of inoculation [109].

4.4. Impact of the Combination of AMF and N Fertilizer on Yield Components and N Uptake

The combination of AMF and N fertilizer increased the yield components, including panicle number, panicle length, and 1000-grain weight. These findings are similar to previous research showing that AMF had a significant effect on production and distribution of plant biomass including root biomass and shoot biomass [110], and another study reporting that AMF accelerates the translocation of nutrients from the shoot to the grain and increases the harvest index [111,112]. We found that the combination of 45 g AMF polybag−1 and 180 kg N ha−1 increased the yield components. Our findings indicate that N application increases the yield, which is consistent with a previous study reporting that the rate of N fertilizer applied is strongly related to crop yield, and N is important for rice yield because plant N status affects the development of the grain yield component [110,113]. The combination of AMF and N fertilizer also increased total N uptake by rice. This is consistent with previous studies showing that AMF significantly increases N uptake by 35% compared to non-AMF plants [114] and that AMF absorb and transfer N to host plants [115,116] because the AMF hyphae network extends more than 10 cm beyond the root surface, which helps obtain inorganic N from the soil more quickly and widely [117].

5. Conclusions

The combination of AMF and N fertilizer significantly affected soil physicochemical properties, rice growth and productivity, and N uptake. The combined application of 45 g AMF polybag−1 and 180 kg N ha−1 treatment significantly enhanced rice growth and productivity by improving root morphology (RL and RV) and N uptake. Overall, the combined application of AMF and N fertilizer provided an ideal environment to promote soil properties, rice growth, rice productivity, and nutrient uptake during agricultural production. To find out more significant effects of AMF, we suggest that other studies analyze the type of soil, AMF diversity in the soil, and crop cultivar before applying the AMF. It will also be necessary to further study the long-term effects of AMF and N fertilizer on crop growth and soil nutrient cycling. In conclusion, the combined application of AMF and N fertilizer is a good formula for enhancing rice growth and productivity by improving root growth and soil properties.

Author Contributions

M.: performed the experiments, analyzed data, prepared figures and/or tables, and wrote the manuscript. L.J. conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31460332).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data reported in this study are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

We appreciated the teachers and staff (Ajeng Solin, Safwan Kombih, Yusmida Tinambunan, Nur Yusra) at the Laboratory of Soil Science at the SMKN Sultan Daulat for providing the land and laboratory in this experiment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fukagawa, N.K.; Ziska, L.H. Rice: Importance for Global Nutrition. J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 2019, 65, S2–S3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Rasheed, A.; Seleiman, M.F.; Nawaz, M.; Mahmood, A.; Anwar, M.R.; Ayub, M.A.; Aamer, M.; El-Esawi, M.A.; El-Harty, E.H.; Batool, M.; et al. Agronomic and Genetic Approaches for Enhancing Tolerance to Heat Stress in Rice: A review. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. 2021, 49, 12501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kumar, R.; Yadav, R. CGIAR Research Program 2020 Reviews: Rice Agri-Food Systems (RICE); Aberystwyth University: Aberystwyth, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Liu, J.; Shu, A.; Song, W.; Shi, W.; Li, M.; Zhang, W.; Li, Z.; Liu, G.; Yuan, F.; Zhang, S.; et al. Long-Term Organic Fertilizer Substitution Increases Rice Yield by Improving Soil Properties and Regulating Soil Bacteria. Geoderma 2021, 404, 115287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kiba, T.; Krapp, A. Plant Nitrogen Acquisition under Low Availability: Regulation of Uptake and Root Architecture. Plant Cell Physiol. 2016, 57, 707–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Li, R.; Li, M.; Ashraf, U.; Liu, S.; Zhang, J. Exploring the Relationships between Yield and Yield-Related Traits for Rice Varieties Released in China from 1978 to 2017. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Chen, K.-E.; Chen, H.-Y.; Tseng, C.-S.; Tsay, Y.-F. Improving Nitrogen Use Efficiency by Manipulating Nitrate Remobilization in Plants. Nat. Plants 2020, 6, 1126–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Andrews, M.; Raven, J.A.; Lea, P.J. Do Plants Need Nitrate? The Mechanisms by which Nitrogen Form Affects Plants: Do Plants Need Nitrate? Ann. Appl. Biol. 2013, 163, 174–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chivenge, P.; Sharma, S.; Bunquin, M.A.; Hellin, J. Improving Nitrogen Use Efficiency—A Key for Sustainable Rice Production Systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 737412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Robertson, G.P.; Vitousek, P.M. Nitrogen in Agriculture: Balancing the Cost of an Essential Resource. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2009, 34, 97–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Ding, W.; Xu, X.; He, P.; Ullah, S.; Zhang, J.; Cui, Z.; Zhou, W. Improving Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency Through Alternative Fertilization Options for Rice in China: A Meta-Analysis. Field Crop. Res. 2018, 227, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wang, H.; Wu, L.; Wang, X.; Zhang, S.; Cheng, M.; Feng, H.; Fan, J.; Zhang, F.; Xiang, Y. Optimization of Water and Fertilizer Management Improves Yield, Water, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Uptake and Use Efficiency of Cotton under Drip Fertigation. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 245, 106662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Congreves, K.A.; Otchere, O.; Ferland, D.; Farzadfar, S.; Williams, S.; Arcand, M.M. Nitrogen Use Efficiency Definitions of Today and Tomorrow. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 637108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Galloway, J.N.; Winiwarter, W.; Leip, A.; Leach, A.; Bleeker, A.; Erisman, J.W. Nitrogen Footprints: Past, Present and Future. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 115003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Houlton, B.Z.; Boyer, E.; Finzi, A.; Galloway, J.; Leach, A.; Liptzin, D.; Melillo, J.; Rosenstock, T.S.; Sobota, D.; Townsend, A.R. Intentional Versus Unintentional Nitrogen Use in the United States: Trends, Efficiency and Implications. Biogeochemistry 2012, 114, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Langholtz, M.; Davison, B.H.; Jager, H.I.; Eaton, L.; Baskaran, L.M.; Davis, M.; Brandt, C.C. Increased Nitrogen use Efficiency in Crop Production Can Provide Economic and Environmental Benefits. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 758, 143602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhu, Z.; Chen, D. Nitrogen Fertilizer Use in China—Contributions to food Production, Impacts on the Environment and Best Management Strategies. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 2002, 63, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ji, Y.; Liu, G.; Ma, J.; Zhang, G.; Xu, H.; Yagi, K. Effect of Controlled-Release Fertilizer on Mitigation of N2O Emission from Paddy Field in South China: A Multi-Year Field Observation. Plant Soil 2013, 371, 473–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gaihre, Y.K.; Singh, U.; Islam, S.M.; Huda, A.; Islam, M.; Satter, M.A.; Sanabria, J.; Islam, R.; Shah, A. Impacts of Urea Deep Placement on Nitrous Oxide and Nitric Oxide Emissions from Rice Fields in Bangladesh. Geoderma 2015, 259–260, 370–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, D.; Wang, H.; Pan, J.; Luo, J.; Liu, J.; Gu, B.; Liu, S.; Zhai, L.; Lindsey, S.; Zhang, Y.; et al. Nitrogen Application Rates Need to be Reduced for Half of the Rice Paddy Fields in China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 265, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Han, M.; Okamoto, M.; Beatty, P.H.; Rothstein, S.J.; Good, A.G. The Genetics of Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Crop Plants. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2015, 49, 269–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wen, Z.; Chen, Y.; Liu, Z.; Meng, J. Biochar and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Stimulate Rice Root Growth Strategy and Soil Nutrient Availability. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2022, 113, 103448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yao, Y.; Zhang, M.; Tian, Y.; Zhao, M.; Zhang, B.; Zhao, M.; Zeng, K.; Yin, B. Urea Deep Placement for Minimizing NH3 Loss in an Intensive Rice Cropping System. Field Crop. Res. 2018, 218, 254–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bandaogo, A.; Bidjokazo, F.; Youl, S.; Safo, E.; Abaidoo, R.; Andrews, O. Effect of Fertilizer Deep Placement with Urea Supergranule on Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Irrigated Rice in Sourou Valley (Burkina Faso). Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 2014, 102, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chen, Y.; Peng, J.; Wang, J.; Fu, P.; Hou, Y.; Zhang, C.; Fahad, S.; Peng, S.; Cui, K.; Nie, L.; et al. Crop Management Based on Multi-Split Topdressing Enhances Grain Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Irrigated Rice in China. Field Crop. Res. 2015, 184, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Xu, H.; Zhong, G.; Lin, J.; Ding, Y.; Li, G.; Wang, S.; Liu, Z.; Tang, S.; Ding, C. Effect of Nitrogen Management During the Panicle Stage in Rice on the Nitrogen Utilization of Rice and Succeeding Wheat Crops. Eur. J. Agron. 2015, 70, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, Z.; Wang, Q.; Ma, J.; Zou, P.; Jiang, L. Impact of Controlled-Release Urea on Rice Yield, Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Soil Fertility in a Single Rice Cropping System. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bao, X.; Zou, J.; Zhang, B.; Wu, L.; Yang, T.; Huang, Q. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Microbes Interaction in Rice Mycorrhizosphere. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kumar, A. Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria in Agriculture Biotechnology: Diversity, Mechanism and their Role in Plant Growth and Crop Yield. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2016, 4, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Sarkar, A.; Asaeda, T.; Wang, Q.; Kaneko, Y.; Rashid, H. Arbuscular Mycorrhiza Confers Lead Tolerance and Uptake in Miscanthus sacchariflorus. Chem. Ecol. 2018, 34, 454–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhao, J.; Ni, T.; Li, Y.; Xiong, W.; Ran, W.; Shen, B.; Shen, Q.; Zhang, R. Responses of Bacterial Communities in Arable Soils in a Rice-Wheat Cropping System to Different Fertilizer Regimes and Sampling Times. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e85301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Huang, M.; Tian, A.; Chen, J.; Cao, F.; Chen, Y.; Liu, L. Soil Bacterial Communities in Three Rice-Based Cropping Systems Differing in Productivity. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Pang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Xu, P.; Yu, D. Microbial Diversity of Upland Rice Roots and Their Influence on Rice Growth and Drought Tolerance. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Hussain, M.B.; Shah, S.H.; Matloob, A.; Mubaraka, R.; Ahmed, N.; Ahmad, I.; Haq, T.U.; Jamshaid, M.U. Rice Interactions with Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria. In Modern Techniques of Rice Crop Production; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 231–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Artursson, V.; Finlay, R.D.; Jansson, J.K. Interactions Between Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Bacteria and their Potential for Stimulating Plant Growth. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 8, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Asiloglu, R.; Shiroishi, K.; Suzuki, K.; Turgay, O.C.; Murase, J.; Harada, N. Protist-Enhanced Survival of a Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria, Azospirillum sp. B510, and the Growth of Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Plants. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 154, 103599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ji, J.; Yuan, D.; Jin, C.; Wang, G.; Li, X.; Guan, C. Enhancement of Growth and Salt Tolerance of Rice Seedlings (Oryza sativa L.) by Regulating Ethylene Production with a Novel Halotolerant PGPR Strain Glutamicibacter sp. YD01 Containing ACC Deaminase Activity. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2020, 42, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Xiao, A.W.; Li, Z.; Li, W.C.; Ye, Z.H. The Effect of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) on Arsenic Accumulation and the Growth of Rice Plants (Oryza sativa L.). Chemosphere 2020, 242, 125136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schüβler, A.; Schwarzott, D.; Walker, C. A New Fungal Phylum, the Glomeromycota: Phylogeny and Evolution. Mycol. Res. 2001, 105, 1413–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Ziedan, E.-S.; Elewa, I.; Mostafa, M.; Sahab, A. Application of Mycorrhizae for Controlling Root Diseases of Sesame. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2011, 51, 355–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Begum, N.; Qin, C.; Ahanger, M.A.; Raza, S.; Khan, M.I.; Ashraf, M.; Ahmed, N.; Zhang, L. Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Plant Growth Regulation: Implications in Abiotic Stress Tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Kaur, S.; Suseela, V. Unraveling Arbuscular Mycorrhiza-Induced Changes in Plant Primary and Secondary Metabolome. Metabolites 2020, 10, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Panneerselvam, P.; Kumar, U.; Sugitha, T.C.K.; Parameswaran, C.; Sahoo, S.; Binodh, A.K.; Jahan, A.; Anandan, A. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) for Sustainable Rice Production. In Advances in Soil Microbiology: Recent Trends and Future Prospects; Microorganisms for, Sustainability; Adhya, T., Mishra, B., Annapurna, K., Verma, D., Kumar, U., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 99–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Clark, R.; Zeto, S. Growth and Root Colonization of Mycorrhizal Maize Grown on Acid and Alkaline Soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1996, 28, 1505–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Javaid, A. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Mediated Nutrition in Plants. J. Plant Nutr. 2009, 32, 1595–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Latef, A.A.H.A. Retracted Article: Influence of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Copper on Growth, Accumulation of Osmolyte, Mineral Nutrition and Antioxidant Enzyme Activity of Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Mycorrhiza 2011, 21, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Meding, S.; Zasoski, R. Hyphal-Mediated Transfer of Nitrate, Arsenic, Cesium, Rubidium, and Strontium between Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Forbs and Grasses from a California Oak Woodland. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 126–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liang, J.-F.; An, J.; Gao, J.-Q.; Zhang, X.-Y.; Song, M.-H.; Yu, F.-H. Interactive Effects of Biochar and AMF on Plant Growth and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Wetland Microcosms. Geoderma 2019, 346, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sa, Y.; Ng, H. Influence of Biochar Application and AMF Inoculation on Root Colonization and Selected Soil Chemical Properties. Ann. Biol. Sci. 2017, 5, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shen, K.; He, Y.; Xu, X.; Umer, M.; Liu, X.; Xia, T.; Guo, Y.; Wu, B.; Xu, H.; Zang, L.; et al. Effects of AMF on Plant Nutrition and Growth Depend on Substrate Gravel Content and Patchiness in the Karst Species Bidens pilosa L. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 968719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, Y.; Bao, X.; Li, S. Effects of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Rice Growth under Different Flooding and Shading Regimes. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 756752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kazadi, A.T.; Lwalaba, J.L.W.; Ansey, B.K.; Muzulukwau, J.M.; Katabe, G.M.; Karul, M.I.; Baert, G.; Haesaert, G.; Mundende, R.-P.M. Effect of Phosphorus and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) Inoculation on Growth and Productivity of Maize (Zea mays L.) in a Tropical Ferralsol. Gesunde Pflanz. 2021, 74, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jatana, B.S.; Kitchens, C.; Ray, C.; Gerard, P.; Tharayil, N. Dual Inoculation with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Phosphorus Solubilizing Fungi Synergistically Enhances the Mobilization and Plant Uptake of Phosphorus from Meat and Bone Meal. Front. Soil Sci. 2021, 1, 757839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. El-Sherbeny, T.; Mousa, A.M.; El-Sayed, E.-S.R. Use of Mycorrhizal Fungi and Phosphorus Fertilization to Improve the Yield of Onion (Allium cepa L.) Plant. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 29, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Badan Pusat Statistika Kota Subulussalam. Data Suhu dan Curah Hujan; Badan Pusat Statistika: Kota Subulussalam, Indonesia, 2022.
  56. Mulyadi; Jiang, L. The Combined Application of Biochar and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) Enhanced the Physical and Chemical Properties of Soil and Rice Productivity in Indonesia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Husnain, M.P.; Widowati Ladiyani, R.; Las Irsal, M.; Muhrizal, S. Rekomendasi Pupuk N, P, and K Spesifik Lokasi untuk Tanaman Padi, Jagung dan Kedelai pada Lahan Sawah (Per Kecamatan) Buku I: Padi; Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian, Kementerian Pertanian: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2020; p. 480. [Google Scholar]
  58. Xi, L.; Mei, X. Soil Nutrient Analyzer; China Express: Zhejiang, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hillel, D. Introduction to Environmental Soil Physics, 1st ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  60. Islam, M.R.; Haque, S.; Akter, N.; Karim, M.A. Leaf Chlorophyll Dynamics in Wheat Based on SPAD Meter Reading and its Relationship with Grain Yield. Sci. Agric. 2014, 8, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liu, J.; Cai, G.; Qian, M.; Wang, D.; Xu, J.; Yang, J.; Zhu, Q. Effect of Cd on the Growth, Dry Matter Accumulation and Grain Yield of Different Rice Cultivars. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2007, 87, 1088–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jackson, M.L. Soil Chemical Analysis: Advanced Course; UW-Madison Libraries Parallel Press: Madison, WI, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  63. Jiang, N.; Guo, Q.; Yu, Y.; Guan, Y.; Yang, W. Soil Sodicity Affected the Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Community and its Interactions with Bacteria in the Western Songnen Plain. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 180, 104602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Qin, Y.; Zhang, W.; Feng, Z.; Feng, G.; Zhu, H.; Yao, Q. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus Differentially Regulates P Mobilizing Bacterial Community and Abundance in Rhizosphere and Hyphosphere. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 170, 104294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tian, D.; Niu, S. A Global Analysis of Soil Acidification Caused by Nitrogen Addition. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 024019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Dong, Y.; Yang, J.-L.; Zhao, X.-R.; Yang, S.-H.; Mulder, J.; Dörsch, P.; Zhang, G.-L. Seasonal Dynamics of Soil pH and N Transformation as Affected by N Fertilization in Subtropical China: An in situ 15N Labeling Study. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 816, 151596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Fall, A.F.; Nakabonge, G.; Ssekandi, J.; Founoune-Mboup, H.; Apori, S.O.; Ndiaye, A.; Badji, A.; Ngom, K. Roles of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Soil Fertility: Contribution in the Improvement of Physical, Chemical, and Biological Properties of the Soil. Front. Fungal Biol. 2022, 3, 723892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Molin, S.J.D.; Ernani, P.R.; Gerber, J.M. Soil Acidification and Nitrogen Release Following Application of Nitrogen Fertilizers. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2020, 51, 2551–2558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Peng, X.; Maharjan, B.; Yu, C.; Su, A.; Jin, V.; Ferguson, R.B. A Laboratory Evaluation of Ammonia Volatilization and Nitrate Leaching following Nitrogen Fertilizer Application on a Coarse-Textured Soil. Agron. J. 2015, 107, 871–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Schroder, J.L.; Zhang, H.; Girma, K.; Raun, W.R.; Penn, C.J.; Payton, M.E. Soil Acidification from Long-Term Use of Nitrogen Fertilizers on Winter Wheat. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2011, 75, 957–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Moro, E.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Nascente, A.S.; Cantarella, H. Teor de Nitrogênio Inorgânico no solo em Função de Plantas de Cobertura, fontes de Nitrogênio e Inibidor de Nitrificação. Pesqui. Agropecuária Trop. 2013, 43, 424–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Hajiboland, R.; Aliasgharzad, N.; Barzeghar, R. Influence of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Uptake of Zn and P by Two Contrasting Rice Genotypes. Plant, Soil Environ. 2009, 55, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Alimi, A.; Adeleke, R.; Moteetee, A. Soil Environmental Factors Shape the Rhizosphere Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Communities in South African Indigenous Legumes (Fabaceae). Biodiversitas J. Biol. Divers. 2021, 22, 2466–2476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gryndler, M. Interactions of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi with Other Soil Organisms. In Arbuscular Mycorrhizas: Physiology and Function; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000; pp. 239–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Barea, J.-M.; Azcón, R.; Azcón-Aguilar, C. Mycorrhizosphere Interactions to Improve Plant Fitness and Soil Quality. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2002, 81, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nakmee, P.S.; Techapinyawat, S.; Ngamprasit, S. Comparative Potentials of Native Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi to Improve Nutrient Uptake and Biomass of Sorghum Bicolor Linn. Agric. Nat. Resour. 2016, 50, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Bona, E.; Cantamessa, S.; Massa, N.; Manassero, P.; Marsano, F.; Copetta, A.; Lingua, G.; D’agostino, G.; Gamalero, E.; Berta, G. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Growth-Promoting Pseudomonads Improve Yield, Quality and Nutritional Value of Tomato: A Field Study. Mycorrhiza 2016, 27, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gamalero, E.; Trotta, A.; Massa, N.; Copetta, A.; Martinotti, M.G.; Berta, G. Impact of Two Fluorescent Pseudomonads and an Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus on Tomato Plant Growth, Root Architecture and P Acquisition. Mycorrhiza 2003, 14, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kim, S.J.; Eo, J.-K.; Lee, E.-H.; Park, H.; Eom, A.-H. Effects of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Soil Conditions on Crop Plant Growth. Mycobiology 2017, 45, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Parihar, P.; Bora, M. Effect of Mycorrhiza (Glomus mosseae) on Morphological and Biochemical Properties of Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) (L.) Dunal. J. Appl. Nat. Sci. 2018, 10, 1115–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gogoi, P.; Singh, R.K. Differential Effect of Some Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Growth of Piper longum L. (Piperaceae). Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2011, 4, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Smith, S.E.; Jakobsen, I.; Grønlund, M.; Smith, F.A. Roles of Arbuscular Mycorrhizas in Plant Phosphorus Nutrition: Interactions between Pathways of Phosphorus Uptake in Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Roots Have Important Implications for Understanding and Manipulating Plant Phosphorus Acquisition. Plant Physiol. 2011, 156, 1050–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Jansa, J.; Forczek, S.T.; Rozmoš, M.; Püschel, D.; Bukovská, P.; Hršelová, H. Arbuscular Mycorrhiza and Soil Organic Nitrogen: Network of Players and Interactions. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2019, 6, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Song, Z.; Bi, Y.; Zhang, J.; Gong, Y.; Yang, H. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Promote the Growth of Plants in the Mining Associated Clay. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Tetteh, Z.V. Effect of Compost and Inorganic Nitrogen Fertilizer on Nutrient Uptake, Growth and Grain Yield of Nerica Rice; University of Ghana: Legon, Accra, Ghana, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  86. Buri, M.M.; Issaka, R.N.; Zoromi, A.; Adjei, E.O.; Wakatsuki, T. Improving Soil Productivity and Increasing Lowland Rice Yields through the Integration of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers in the Savannah and Forest Agro-ecological Zones of La Cote d’Ívoire. West African J. Appl. Ecol. 2022, 30, 35–47. [Google Scholar]
  87. Zhang, S.; Liu, Y.; Du, M.; Shou, G.; Wang, Z.; Xu, G. Nitrogen as a Regulator for Flowering Time in Plant. Plant Soil 2022, 480, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Abbott, L.K.; Robson, A.D.; Boer, G. The Effect of Phosphorus on the Formation of Hyphae in Soil by Thevesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus, Glomus Fasciculatum. New Phytol. 1984, 97, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Dighton, J. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. By J. L. Harley and S. E. Smith. London and New York: Academic Press (1983), pp. 483, £35.00. Exp. Agric. 1986, 22, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wellings, N.; Wearing, A.; Thompson, J. Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizae (VAM) Improve Phosphorus and Zinc Nutrition and Growth of Pigeonpea in a Vertisol. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1991, 42, 835–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ikram, A.; Mahmud, A.W.; Ghani, M.N.; Ibrahim, M.T.; Zainal, A.B. Field Nursery Inoculation of Hevea Brasiliensis Muell. Arg. Seedling Rootstock with Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizal (VAM) Fungi. Plant Soil 1992, 145, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Saha, B.; Panda, P.; Patra, P.S.; Panda, R.; Kundu, A.; Roy, A.S.; Mahato, N. Effect of Different Levels of Nitrogen on Growth and Yield of Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Cultivars under Terai-Agro Climatic Situation. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 2408–2418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Fageria, N.K.; Baligar, V.C. Lowland Rice Response to Nitrogen Fertilization. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2001, 32, 1405–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Jabborova, D.; Annapurna, K.; Al-Sadi, A.M.; Alharbi, S.A.; Datta, R.; Zuan, A.T.K. Biochar and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Mediated Enhanced Drought Tolerance in Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) Plant Growth, Root Morphological Traits and Physiological Properties. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 5490–5499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Kusvuran, S. Influence of Drought Stress on Growth, Ion Accumulation and Antioxidative Enzymes in Okra Genotypes. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2012, 14, 401–406. [Google Scholar]
  96. Chapman, S.C.; Barreto, H.J. Using a Chlorophyll Meter to Estimate Specific Leaf Nitrogen of Tropical Maize during Vegetative Growth. Agron. J. 1997, 89, 557–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ho, I. Analysis of Nutrient Uptake by Six Species of Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Zea mays. Indian J. Mycol. Plant Pathol. 1993, 23, 64–69. [Google Scholar]
  98. Tarafdar, J.C.; Jungk, A. Phosphatase Activity in the Rhizosphere and its Relation to the Depletion of Soil Organic Phosphorus. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1987, 3, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Chandrasekaran, M. A Meta-Analytical Approach on Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Inoculation Efficiency on Plant Growth and Nutrient Uptake. Agriculture 2020, 10, 370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Aulakh, M.S.; Malhi, S.S. Interactions of Nitrogen with Other Nutrients and Water: Effect on Crop Yield and Quality, Nutrient Use Efficiency, Carbon Sequestration, and Environmental Pollution. Adv. Agron. 2005, 86, 341–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wang, X.; Zhou, B.; Sun, X.; Yue, Y.; Ma, W.; Zhao, M. Soil Tillage Management Affects Maize Grain Yield by Regulating Spatial Distribution Coordination of Roots, Soil Moisture and Nitrogen Status. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0129231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Giri, B.; Mukerji, K.G. Mycorrhizal Inoculant Alleviates Salt Stress in Sesbania aegyptiaca and Sesbania grandiflora under Field Conditions: Evidence for Reduced Sodium and Improved Magnesium Uptake. Mycorrhiza 2003, 14, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Zhang, Y.-J.; Xu, J.-N.; Cheng, Y.-D.; Wang, C.; Liu, G.-S.; Yang, J.-C. The Effects of Water and Nitrogen on the Roots and Yield of Upland and Paddy Rice. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 1363–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zhang, F.; Zou, Y.-N.; Wu, Q.-S. Quantitative Estimation of Water Uptake by Mycorrhizal Extraradical Hyphae in Citrus under Drought Stress. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 229, 132–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Meddich, A.; Jaiti, F.; Bourzik, W.; El Asli, A.; Hafidi, M. Use of Mycorrhizal Fungi as a Strategy for Improving the Drought Tolerance in Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifera). Sci. Hortic. 2015, 192, 468–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ortas, I. The Effect of Mycorrhizal Fungal Inoculation on Plant Yield, Nutrient Uptake and Inoculation Effectiveness under Long-Term Field Conditions. Field Crop. Res. 2012, 125, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Collins, C.D.; Foster, B.L. Community-Level Consequences of Mycorrhizae Depend on Phosphorus Availability. Ecology 2009, 90, 2567–2576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Hoeksema, J.D.; Chaudhary, V.B.; Gehring, C.A.; Johnson, N.C.; Karst, J.; Koide, R.T.; Pringle, A.; Zabinski, C.; Bever, J.D.; Moore, J.C.; et al. A Meta-Analysis of Context-Dependency in Plant Response to Inoculation with Mycorrhizal Fungi. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13, 394–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Bi, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zou, H. Plant Growth and their Root Development after Inoculation of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Coal Mine Subsided Areas. Int. J. Coal Sci. Technol. 2018, 5, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Zhang, S.; Wang, L.; Ma, F.; Bloomfield, K.J.; Yang, J.; Atkin, O.K. Is Resource Allocation and Grain Yield of Rice Altered by Inoculation with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi? J. Plant Ecol. 2014, 8, 436–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Verbruggen, E.; Heijden, M.G.A.; Rillig, M.C.; Kiers, E.T. Mycorrhizal Fungal Establishment in Agricultural Soils: Factors Determining Inoculation Success. New Phytol. 2012, 197, 1104–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Wagg, C.; Jansa, J.; Stadler, M.; Schmid, B.; Van Der Heijden, M.G.A. Mycorrhizal Fungal Identity and Diversity Relaxes Plant–Plant Competition. Ecology 2011, 92, 1303–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  113. Solaiman, M.Z.; Hirata, H. Glomus -Wetland Rice Mycorrhizas Influenced by Nursery Inoculation Techniques under High Fertility Soil Conditions. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1998, 27, 92–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Chandrasekaran, M. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Mediated Enhanced Biomass, Root Morphological Traits and Nutrient Uptake under Drought Stress: A Meta-Analysis. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Wang, Y.; Lu, J.; Ren, T.; Hussain, S.; Guo, C.; Wang, S.; Cong, R.; Li, X. Effects of Nitrogen and Tiller Type on Grain Yield and Physiological Responses in Rice. AoB PLANTS 2017, 9, plx012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Yoshida, S. Fundamentals of Rice Crop Science; International Rice Research Institute: Los Baños, Philippines, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  117. Cavagnaro, T.R.; Bender, S.F.; Asghari, H.R.; van der Heijden, M.G. The Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhizas in Reducing Soil Nutrient Loss. Trends Plant Sci. 2015, 20, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. The mean average range of (A) temperature and (B) relative humidity and total rainfall during both seasons.
Figure 1. The mean average range of (A) temperature and (B) relative humidity and total rainfall during both seasons.
Agriculture 13 01364 g001
Figure 2. Impact of different levels of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on plant height (cm). Note: The standard error of the mean is represented by vertical bars.
Figure 2. Impact of different levels of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on plant height (cm). Note: The standard error of the mean is represented by vertical bars.
Agriculture 13 01364 g002
Figure 3. Impact of different levels of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on tiller number. Note: The standard error of the mean is represented by vertical bars.
Figure 3. Impact of different levels of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on tiller number. Note: The standard error of the mean is represented by vertical bars.
Agriculture 13 01364 g003
Figure 4. Impact of different levels of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on flowering time days after transplanting (DAT). Note: The standard error of the mean is represented by vertical bars.
Figure 4. Impact of different levels of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on flowering time days after transplanting (DAT). Note: The standard error of the mean is represented by vertical bars.
Agriculture 13 01364 g004
Figure 5. Impact of different levels of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on flag leaf area (cm2). Note: The standard error of the mean is represented by vertical bars.
Figure 5. Impact of different levels of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on flag leaf area (cm2). Note: The standard error of the mean is represented by vertical bars.
Agriculture 13 01364 g005
Figure 6. Impact of different levels of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on SPAD chlorophyll content. Note: The standard error of the mean is represented by vertical bars.
Figure 6. Impact of different levels of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on SPAD chlorophyll content. Note: The standard error of the mean is represented by vertical bars.
Agriculture 13 01364 g006
Table 1. Variations in soil physicochemical characteristics under different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen application rates.
Table 1. Variations in soil physicochemical characteristics under different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen application rates.
TreatmentsBD (g cm−3)SP (%)pHSOM (%)TN (%)AP (ppm)AK (ppm)
Before1.3241.765.281.520.0521.22223.11
Early Season (S1)
M0N01.33 ± 0.005 g41.80 ± 0.01 l5.20 ± 0.01 g1.52 ± 0.01 d0.14 ± 0.005 f21.30 ± 0.005 i223.45 ± 0.015 l
M0N11.27 ± 0.01 f41.88 ± 0.01 k5.22 ± 0.01 g1.56 ± 0.005 d0.18 ± 0.005 e21.62 ± 0.015 h225.69 ± 0.01 j
M0N21.27 ± 0.005 f43.10 ± 0.02 j5.29 ± 0.015 f1.73 ± 0.005 c0.18 ± 0.00 de21.74 ± 0.005 g225.46 ± 0.01 k
M1N01.22 ± 0.005 e46.30 ± 0.02 i5.87 ± 0.025 d1.95 ± 0.01 b0.17 ± 0.00 e25.26 ± 0.015 f227.16 ± 0.005 i
M1N11.17 ± 0.005 d56.84 ± 0.03 f5.76 ± 0.02 e1.95 ± 0.005 b0.20 ± 0.005 d25.29 ± 0.005 f227.83 ± 0.01 h
M1N21.25 ± 0.01 f58.94 ± 0.03 e5.31 ± 0.01 f1.93 ± 0.005 b0.22 ± 0.005 c25.78 ± 0.011 e228.3 ± 0.01 g
M2N01.19 ± 0.005 de48.18 ± 0.01 h5.97 ± 0.01 c1.98 ± 0.005 b0.18 ± 0.005 e25.81 ± 0.04 de229.25 ± 0.02 f
M2N11.01 ± 0.01 c60.15 ± 0.025 d5.87 ± 0.025 d1.96 ± 0.00 b0.23 ± 0.005 cd25.92 ± 0.005 d229.88 ± 0.015 d
M2N21.00 ± 0.025 bc63.14 ± 0.045 c5.33 ± 0.01 f1.93 ± 0.005 b0.24 ± 0.005 bc25.84 ± 0.015 de230.09 ± 0.005 c
M3N01.17 ± 0.005 d48.92 ± 0.005 g6.12 ± 0.01 a2.04 ± 0.05 a0.22 ± 0.005 c26.38 ± 0.015 c229.80 ± 0.01 e
M3N10.98 ± 0.005 ab64.89 ± 0.035 b6.02 ± 0.01 b1.98 ± 0.005 b0.25 ± 0.005 ab27.85 ± 0.04 a230.19 ± 0.005 b
M3N20.96 ± 0.01 a67.17 ± 0.025 a5.97 ± 0.00 c1.96 ± 0.005 b0.26 ± 0.01 a27.71 ± 0.02 b231.88 ± 0.01 a
Late Season (S2)
M0N01.35 ± 0.005 h41.85 ± 0.005 l5.19 ± 0.005 i1.51 ± 0.01 h0.15 ± 0.005 f21.28 ± 0.005 k222.93 ± 0.055 l
M0N11.28 ± 0.005 g41.92 ± 0.05 k5.24 ± 0.005 h1.55 ± 0.005 h0.19 ± 0.005 e21.66 ± 0.02 j225.93 ± 0.04 j
M0N21.25 ± 0.005 f43.14 ± 0.03 j5.32 ± 0.03 g1.65 ± 0.02 g0.19 ± 0.005 e21.77 ± 0.01 i225.35 ± 0.025 k
M1N01.20 ± 0.005 e46.62 ± 0.05 i5.88 ± 0.01 d1.93 ± 0.005 ef0.18 ± 0.005 e25.32 ± 0.005 h227.35 ± 0.03 i
M1N11.15 ± 0.005 d56.92 ± 0.015 f5.95 ± 0.005 c1.95 ± 0.005 cdef0.21 ± 0.005 d25.39 ± 0.005 g227.70 ± 0.03 h
M1N21.25 ± 0.005 f58.98 ± 0.005 e5.74 ± 0.02 f1.91 ± 0.01 f0.22 ± 0.01 cd25.76 ± 0.025 f228.20 ± 0.015 g
M2N01.19 ± 0.005 e48.28 ± 0.045 h6.06 ± 0.03 b1.99 ± 0.005 bc0.18 ± 0.005 e25.81 ± 0.015 f125.78 ± 0.04 f
M2N11.04 ± 0.015 c60.26 ± 0.01 d5.98 ± 0.005 c1.97 ± 0.005 bcde0.24 ± 0.005 c25.97 ± 0.01 d229.77 ± 0.015 e
M2N21.01 ± 0.01 b63.23 ± 0.02 c5.82 ± 0.005 e1.94 ± 0.00 def0.26 ± 0.005 b25.85 ± 0.02 e230.12 ± 0.01 d
M3N01.15 ± 0.005 d48.98 ± 0.005 g6.13 ± 0.005 a2.06 ± 0.03 a0.21 ± 0.01 d26.38 ± 0.01 c229.88 ± 0.01 c
M3N11.00 ± 0.01 ab65.13 ± 0.005 b6.06 ± 0.02 b1.99 ± 0.02 b0.27 ± 0.005 ab27.84 ± 0.005 a230.22 ± 0.005 b
M3N20.98 ± 0.01 a67.41 ± 0.02 a5.96 ± 0.01 c1.97 ± 0.00 bcd0.28 ± 0.005 a27.63 ± 0.005 b231.88 ± 0.015 a
M**************
N******ns******
M × N********ns****
LSD0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0690.0000.000
Note: Bulk density (BD), soil porosity (SP), potential hydrogen (pH), soil organic matter (SOM), total nitrogen (TN), available phosphorus (AP), and available potassium (AK), ± indicates the standard error among replications, LSD: least significant difference of M × N, M: mycorrhizae, N: nitrogen, M×N: interaction between mycorrhizae and nitrogen, M0N0: 0 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1 (control), M0N1: 0 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, M0N2: 0 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1, M1N0: 15 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1, M1N1: 15 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, M1N2: 15 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1, M2N0: 30 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1, M2N1: 30 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, M2N2: 30 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1, M3N0: 45 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1, M3N1: 45 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, and M3N2: 45 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1. Means with the same lowercase letters in a column are not significantly different (p > 0.05) according to Duncan’s test. ** indicates a significant difference (p < 0.01), and ns: no significant difference (p > 0.05).
Table 2. Impact of different levels of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on the root length (cm) and root volume (cm3) of rice.
Table 2. Impact of different levels of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on the root length (cm) and root volume (cm3) of rice.
TreatmentsRoot Morphology
Early SeasonLate Season
RL (cm)RV (cm3)RL (cm)RV (cm3)
M0N026.09 ± 0.08 j27.43 ± 0.02 k26.22 ± 0.29 i27.72 ± 0.06 j
M0N128.00 ± 0.08 i28.91 ± 0.01 j28.19 ± 0.11 h29.26 ± 0.06 i
M0N228.21 ± 0.22 i30.71 ± 0.22 i28.27 ± 0.13 h30.98 ± 0.13 h
M1N029.81 ± 0.30 h33.04 ± 0.06 h29.97 ± 0.30 g33.34 ± 0.14 g
M1N132.01 ± 0.06 fg34.33 ± 0.08 g32.27 ± 0.12 f34.88 ± 0.05 ef
M1N233.31 ± 0.07 e35.61 ± 0.08 e33.59 ± 0.07 e36.24 ± 0.18 d
M2N031.78 ± 0.06 g34.06 ± 0.18 g32.00 ± 0.12 f34.59 ± 0.11 f
M2N135.21 ± 0.11 d35.97 ± 0.04 d36.16 ± 0.05 d36.54 ± 0.18 d
M2N236.47 ± 0.07 c37.57 ± 0.13 b37.19 ± 0.09 c38.13 ± 0.20 b
M3N032.29 ± 0.11 f34.77 ± 0.12 f32.43 ± 0.02 f35.28 ± 0.07 e
M3N139.67 ± 0.19 b37.02 ± 0.08 c39.77 ± 0.15 b37.59 ± 0.17 c
M3N240.36 ± 0.11 a39.16 ± 0.12 a41.02 ± 0.06 a39.74 ± 0.18 a
M********
N********
M × N******ns
LSD0.0000.0000.0000.014
Note: Root length (RL), root volume (RV), ± indicates the standard error among the replications, LSD: least significant difference of M × N, M: mycorrhizae, N: nitrogen, M×N: interaction between mycorrhizae and nitrogen, M0N0: 0 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1 (control), M0N1: 0 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, M0N2: 0 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1, M1N0: 15 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1, M1N1: 15 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, M1N2: 15 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1, M2N0: 30 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1, M2N1: 30 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, M2N2: 30 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1, M3N0: 45 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1, M3N1: 45 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, and M3N2: 45 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1. Means with the same lowercase letters in a column are not significantly different (p > 0.05) according to Duncan’s test. ** indicates a significant difference at p < 0.01, and ns: no significant difference (p > 0.05).
Table 3. Impact of different rates of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on the panicle number, panicle length, and 1000-grain weight of rice.
Table 3. Impact of different rates of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on the panicle number, panicle length, and 1000-grain weight of rice.
TreatmentsYield Components
Early SeasonLate Season
PNPL (cm)1000-Grain Weight (g)PNPL (cm)1000-Grain Weight (g)
M0N019.11 ± 0.11 h16.42 ± 0.06 f29.17 ± 0.06 h18.89 ± 0.22 j16.61 ± 0.15 g29.46 ± 0.03 h
M0N120.22 ± 0.29 g16.79 ± 0.17 f29.71 ± 0.16 g20.44 ± 0.11 i17.00 ± 0.19 fg29.91 ± 0.06 h
M0N221.00 ± 0.00 g16.87 ± 0.17 f31.31 ± 0.40 g21.44 ± 0.11 h17.38 ± 0.16 f31.55 ± 0.17 g
M1N025.00 ± 0.33 f19.18 ± 0.05 e33.51 ± 0.24 f25.33 ± 0.19 g19.20 ± 0.20 e33.79 ± 0.02 f
M1N125.67 ± 0.19 ef20.16 ± 0.13 d34.80 ± 0.31 e26.11 ± 0.11 f20.56 ± 0.22 d35.06 ± 0.14 e
M1N226.00 ± 0.33 e22.23 ± 0.23 c36.08 ± 0.18 cd26.56 ± 0.11 f22.56 ± 0.11 c36.43 ± 0.12 c
M2N027.22 ± 0.29 d19.12 ± 0.06 e34.52 ± 0.39 e27.56 ± 0.11 e19.67 ± 0.00 e34.78 ± 0.22 e
M2N127.78 ± 0.40 cd23.70 ± 0.32 b36.43 ± 0.28 c28.11 ± 0.29 d23.79 ± 0.28 b36.88 ± 0.14 c
M2N228.56 ± 0.11 c23.99 ± 0.09 b36.99 ± 0.32 bc29.00 ± 0.19 c24.04 ± 0.11 b37.42 ± 0.12 b
M3N028.00 ± 0.33 cd20.22 ± 0.29 d35.23 ± 0.37 de28.22 ± 0.11 d20.78 ± 0.62 d35.61 ± 0.14 d
M3N130.78 ± 0.40 b24.03 ± 0.14 b37.83 ± 0.24 ab31.56 ± 0.11 b24.49 ± 0.14 b38.63 ± 0.24 a
M3N232.00 ± 0.19 a24.59 ± 0.13 a38.12 ± 0.27 a32.56 ± 0.11 a25.30 ± 0.09 a39.02 ± 0.27 a
M************
N************
M × N****ns******
LSD0.0000.0000.0210.0000.0000.000
Note: Panicle length (PL), panicle number (PN), ± indicates the standard error among the replications, LSD: least significant difference of M × N, M: mycorrhizae, N: nitrogen, M × N: interaction between mycorrhizae and nitrogen, M0N0: 0 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1 (control), M0N1: 0 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, M0N2: 0 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1, M1N0: 15 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1, M1N1: 15 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, M1N2: 15 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1, M2N0: 30 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1, M2N1: 30 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, M2N2: 30 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1, M3N0: 45 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1, M3N1: 45 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, and M3N2: 45 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1. Means with the same lowercase letters in a column are not significantly different (p > 0.05) according to Duncan’s test. ** indicates a significant difference at p < 0.01, and ns: no significant difference (p > 0.05).
Table 4. Impact of different rates of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on the root dry matter, shoot dry matter, and nitrogen uptake of rice.
Table 4. Impact of different rates of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen fertilizer on the root dry matter, shoot dry matter, and nitrogen uptake of rice.
TreatmentsDry Matter and N Uptake
Early SeasonLate Season
RDM (g)SDM (g)NU (g polybag−1)RDM (g)SDM (g)NU (g polybag−1)
M0N019.34 ± 0.10 k40.78 ± 0.17 i3.19 ± 0.00 l19.48 ± 0.13 i40.97 ± 0.19 i3.22 ± 0.00 l
M0N120.58 ± 0.17 j41.06 ± 0.08 i3.35 ± 0.00 k20.71 ± 0.12 h41.17 ± 0.07 i3.37 ± 0.01 k
M0N221.74 ± 0.20 i42.03 ± 0.10 h5.39 ± 0.00 f21.76 ± 0.06 g42.23 ± 0.06 h5.40 ± 0.00 f
M1N024.24 ± 0.06 h44.21 ± 0.11 g4.51 ± 0.00 j24.64 ± 0.06 f44.33 ± 0.06 g4.52 ± 0.00 j
M1N125.53 ± 0.08 g45.64 ± 0.06 ef5.20 ± 0.01 g25.70 ± 0.05 e45.76 ± 0.05 e5.23 ± 0.00 g
M1N226.81 ± 0.08 e46.43 ± 0.39 d5.84 ± 0.00 e26.94 ± 0.13 d46.54 ± 0.03 d5.88 ± 0.01 e
M2N025.26 ± 0.18 g45.10 ± 0.12 f4.60 ± 0.00 i25.52 ± 0.13 e45.44 ± 0.04 f4.61 ± 0.00 i
M2N127.66 ± 0.10 d48.27 ± 0.25 c5.96 ± 0.01 d27.63 ± 0.07 c48.51 ± 0.11 c5.99 ± 0.02 d
M2N228.32 ± 0.06 c50.01 ± 0.14 b6.19 ± 0.00 c28.56 ± 0.08 b50.43 ± 0.02 b6.22 ± 0.00 c
M3N025.97 ± 0.12 f46.24 ± 0.37 de4.76 ± 0.00 h25.39 ± 0.09 e46.50 ± 0.06 d4.80 ± 0.00 h
M3N128.72 ± 0.16 b49.67 ± 0.30 b6.31 ± 0.01 b28.81 ± 0.16 b50.64 ± 0.11 b6.33 ± 0.01 b
M3N229.86 ± 0.09 a51.41 ± 0.19 a6.64 ± 0.01 a29.94 ± 0.09 a52.54 ± 0.03 a6.71 ± 0.00 a
M************
N************
M × N************
LSD0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
Note: Root dry matter (RDM), shoot dry matter (SDM), nitrogen uptake (NU), ± indicates the standard error among the replications, LSD: least significant difference of M × N, M: mycorrizhae, N: nitrogen, M × N: interaction between mycorrizhae and nitrogen, M0N0: 0 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1 (control), M0N1: 0 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, M0N2: 0 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1, M1N0: 15 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1, M1N1: 15 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, M1N2: 15 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1, M2N0: 30 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1, M2N1: 30 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, M2N2: 30 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1, M3N0: 45 g AMF + 0 kg N ha−1, M3N1: 45 g AMF + 90 kg N ha−1, and M3N2: 45 g AMF + 180 kg N ha−1. Means with the same lowercase letters in a column are not significantly different (p > 0.05) according to Duncan’s test. ** indicates a significant difference (p < 0.01).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mulyadi; Jiang, L. Combined Application of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) and Nitrogen Fertilizer Alters the Physicochemical Soil Properties, Nitrogen Uptake, and Rice Yield in a Polybag Experiment. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1364. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13071364

AMA Style

Mulyadi, Jiang L. Combined Application of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) and Nitrogen Fertilizer Alters the Physicochemical Soil Properties, Nitrogen Uptake, and Rice Yield in a Polybag Experiment. Agriculture. 2023; 13(7):1364. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13071364

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mulyadi, and Ligeng Jiang. 2023. "Combined Application of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) and Nitrogen Fertilizer Alters the Physicochemical Soil Properties, Nitrogen Uptake, and Rice Yield in a Polybag Experiment" Agriculture 13, no. 7: 1364. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13071364

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop