Next Article in Journal
Identification of Adult Fasciola spp. Using Matrix-Assisted Laser/Desorption Ionization Time-of-Flight (MALDI-TOF) Mass Spectrometry
Previous Article in Journal
Regulation of Serum Exosomal MicroRNAs in Mice Infected with Orientia tsutsugamushi
Previous Article in Special Issue
Secretion of Iron(III)-Reducing Metabolites during Protein Acquisition by the Ectomycorrhizal Fungus Paxillus involutus
Article

Analysis of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Inoculant Benchmarks

1
African Genome Center—AgroBioSciences, Mohammed VI Polytechnic University (UM6P), Lot 660, Hay Moulay Rachid, Ben Guerir 43150, Morocco
2
Institut de Recherche en Biologie Végétale, Département de sciences biologiques, Université de Montréal, 4101 Sherbrooke Est, Montréal, QC H1X 2B2, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally in this study and their names were put in alphabetic order.
Microorganisms 2021, 9(1), 81; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9010081
Received: 25 November 2020 / Revised: 23 December 2020 / Accepted: 26 December 2020 / Published: 31 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mycorrhizal Fungi)
Growing evidence showed that efficient acquisition and use of nutrients by crops is controlled by root-associated microbiomes. Efficient management of this system is essential to improving crop yield, while reducing the environmental footprint of crop production. Both endophytic and rhizospheric microorganisms can directly promote crop growth, increasing crop yield per unit of soil nutrients. A variety of plant symbionts, most notably the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and phosphate-potassium-solubilizing microorganisms entered the era of large-scale applications in agriculture, horticulture, and forestry. The purpose of this study is to compile data to give a complete and comprehensive assessment and an update of mycorrhizal-based inoculant uses in agriculture in the past, present, and future. Based on available data, 68 mycorrhizal products from 28 manufacturers across Europe, America, and Asia were examined on varying properties such as physical forms, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal composition, number of active ingredients, claims of purpose served, mode of application, and recommendation. Results show that 90% of the products studied are in solid formula—powder (65%) and granular (25%), while only 10% occur in liquid formula. We found that 100% of the products are based on the Glomeraceae of which three species dominate among all the products in the order of Rhizophagus irregularis (39%), Funneliformis mosseae (21%), Claroideoglomus etunicatum (16%). Rhizophagus clarus is the least common among all the benchmark products. One third of the products is single species AMF and only 19% include other beneficial microbes. Of the sampled products, 44% contain AMF only while the rest are combined with varying active ingredients. Most of the products (84%) claimed to provide plant nutrient benefits. Soil application dominates agricultural practices of the products and represents 47%. A substantial amount of the inoculants were applied in cereal production. Recommended application doses varied extensively per plant, seed and hectare. AMF inoculant seed coating accounted for 26% of the products’ application and has great potential for increased inoculation efficiency over large-scale production due to minimum inoculum use. More applied research should also be conducted on the possible combination of AMF with other beneficial microbes. View Full-Text
Keywords: arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; bioinoculants; biostimulants; biofertilizers; crop production; inoculant formulation; field applications arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; bioinoculants; biostimulants; biofertilizers; crop production; inoculant formulation; field applications
Show Figures

Figure 1

  • Supplementary File 1:

    ZIP-Document (ZIP, 4936 KiB)

  • Externally hosted supplementary file 1
    Link: https://udemontreal-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/mohamed_hijri_umontreal_ca/EtoJITwQfcROt6CR73d52w4BqjSZoIkLhyMVxtZbfxb6fQ?e=jHYZ63
    Description: Supporting Figure S1. Physical forms of the commercial mycorrhizal inoculants. Supporting Figure S2. Breakdown of the commercial mycorrhizal inoculants by species composition (A); number of species per product (B); and active ingredients contained in formulations (C). Supporting Figure S3. Each circle represents a different product and is positioned according to 3 characteristics: total mycorrhiza concentration in the product (propagules per gram), forms (liquid, powder or granular) and number of different mycorrhiza strains contained. Product names were not shown due to the space limitation. Supporting Figure S4. Evolution of mycorrhizal producing and marketing firm in Europe from 2010 to 2017. Adapted from Keswani et al., 2018. Supporting Table S1: Raw data of AMF-based inoculants used in the study. Supporting Table S2: Effect of Commercial Inoculants in Greenhouse and Field trials.
MDPI and ACS Style

Basiru, S.; Mwanza, H.P.; Hijri, M. Analysis of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Inoculant Benchmarks. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9010081

AMA Style

Basiru S, Mwanza HP, Hijri M. Analysis of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Inoculant Benchmarks. Microorganisms. 2021; 9(1):81. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9010081

Chicago/Turabian Style

Basiru, Sulaimon, Hopkins P. Mwanza, and Mohamed Hijri. 2021. "Analysis of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Inoculant Benchmarks" Microorganisms 9, no. 1: 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9010081

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop