Contribution of different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal inoculum to Elymus nutans under nitrogen addition


Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi are known to promote plant growth and nutrient uptake, but the role of AM fungi play in nitrogen (N) uptake is still unclear. Therefore, a pot experiment was conducted to assess the effects of N addition (0 and 200 kg N ha−1 yr−1) and AM inoculation (Diversispora eburnea, Claroideoglomus etunicatum, Paraglomus occultum, 1:1:1 mixture of each AM fungal species and a non-mycorrhizal control) on AM root colonization, plant growth, N and P nutrition. Our results showed that AM root colonization was unaffected by N addition, but was significantly affected by different AM fungal species. D. eburnea and C. etunicatum showed a significant higher root colonization than P. occultum. Plant biomass, N and P content was significantly enhanced by N addition when inoculated with D. eburnea and AM mixture, but unaffected by N addition when inoculated with C. etunicatum and P. occultum. On the other hand, inoculation with different AM fungal species resulted in different plant response. For instance, inoculation with D. eburnea and AM mixture contributed substantially to plant biomass, N and P nutrition. Whereas, inoculation with C. etunicatum and P. occultum did not significantly enhance plant biomass, N and P content regardless of N addition. In conclusion, these results indicated that the plant response to N addition depends on AM fungal species, and emphasized that significant functional diversity exists among AM fungal species.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. That said, if the manuscript is accepted for publication then the reviewer reports can be optionally signed and made public (see below).
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).
  • If the article is accepted, then the authors are given the option to reproduce the reviewer reports, and their full revision history, alongside their finally published article. In those instances, the comments of the reviewers will be made public (although reviewers' names will never be revealed unless the reviewer opted to sign their review, as noted above).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at