Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi inoculation for coffee seedling production with commercial and conventional substrates

Silveira, Adriana Parada Dias; Tristão, Fabrício Sales Massafera; Fernandes, Ana Olívia; Andrade, Sara Adrian Lopez; Cipriano, Mateus Aparecido Pereira

doi:10.1590/1678-4499.20220161

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Article • Bragantia 82 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.20220161 copy

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi inoculation for coffee seedling production with commercial and conventional substrates

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Coffee seedlings are commonly produced on substrate composed of a mixture of soil and cattle manure, supplemented with chemical fertilizers. Alternatives to reduce production costs and produce seedlings of greater quality and health include the use of commercial organic substrates, which require less handling. The use of beneficial microorganisms such as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) can be considered a good alternative for production of more vigorous coffee seedlings. The main goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of the inoculation of AMF isolates on coffee seedlings development in a commercial organic substrate (based on coconut fiber) and conventional substrate (mixture composed of soil and cattle manure compost). Ten AMF were tested: Rhizophagus irregularis, Glomus macrocarpum, Claroideoglomus etunicatum, Rhizophagus clarus, Glomus spp., Gigaspora margarita, Acaulospora morrowiae, Acaulospora scrobiculata, Acaulospora spp., and Dentiscutata heterogamma. Plant growth, shoot P content, mycorrhizal colonization, extraradical mycelium length, phosphatase activity, and photosynthetic pigments were evaluated. The effects of mycorrhization depended on both the inoculated fungal species and the substrate for seedling cultivation. Inoculation of G. margarita, Acaulospora spp., and Glomus spp. in the conventional substrate conferred the best growth plant responses, increasing shoot biomass by 160 to 320%. In the commercial substrate, the most efficient AMF were R. clarus, Glomus spp, A. morrowiae and A. scrobiculata, with up to 149% of shoot biomass increase. The commercial organic substrate and the inoculation of some of the AMF isolates were highly beneficial to coffee seedlings development and can replace the use of the conventional substrate. These results open new opportunities for the use of AMF as an inoculant to improve coffee seedling production in commercial organic substrates.

Key words
Coffea arabica ; arbuscular mycorrhiza; external mycelium; photosynthetic pigments; P nutrition

Substrate	Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi
Substrate	Control	R irr	G macr	C etu	R clar	G sp	Gi mar	A morr	A scro	A sp	D heter
Stem diameter (mm)
Commercial	2.9 d	3.1 d	3.5 bcd ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	3.1 d	4.3 a ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	4.0 ab ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	3.2 cd	3.9 abc ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	3.9 abc ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	3.6 bcd	3.3 bcd ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;
Conventional	2.5 C	2.7 BC	3.0 ABC	2.7 BC	3.1 ABC	3.4 AB	3.2 ABC	2.9 ABC	2.7 BC	3.5 A	2.6 C
Height (cm)
Commercial	23.8 e ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	24.2 e	27.9 bcd	27.3 bcd ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	34.3 a ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	34.1 ab ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	25.6 de	32.7 abc ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	33.0 abc ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	27.0 bcd	26.0 cde ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;
Conventional	15.7 D	20.2 BCD	24.2 ABC	20.5 BCD	26.4 AB	24.0 ABC	25.9 ABC	21.3 BCD	19.4 BCD	27.5 A	18.7 CD
Leaf number
Commercial	18.8 bc	18.8 bc	26.0 ab ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	18.8 bc	31.6 a ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	31.6 a ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	17.2 c	31.6 a ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	31.2 a ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	18.4 bc	22.8 bc ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;
Conventional	14.4 B	16.8 AB	18.4 AB	16.8 AB	21.6 AB	23.6 A	22.8 A ^* * Significant difference between substrates within each arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation treatment, capital letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “conventional” substrate and small letters compare means of AMF inoculation in the “commercial” substrate, by the Tukey test (P < 0.05); Control: without AMF inoculation;	18.8 AB	18.0 AB	22.0 AB	16.4 AB

Substrate¹	Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi²
Substrate¹	Control	R irr	G macr	C etu	R clar	G sp	Gi mar	A morr	A scro	A sp	D heter
Chlorophyll a (mg.mL^-1plant extract)
Commercial	13.3 ab	13.3 ab	15.1 ab	13.1 ab	17.2 a	16.5 ab	10.6 b	16.8 a	14.9 ab	11.7 ab	14.4 ab
Conventional	13.4 B	18.8 AB *	18.9 AB *	17.1 AB *	20.1 A	18.1 AB	20.0 A *	17.3 AB	18.2 AB	20.9 A *	18.1 AB *
Chlorophyll b (mg.mL^-1plantextract)
Commercial	3.8 a	3.8 a	3.6 a	3.9 a	4.4 a	4.3 a	3.5 a	3.9 a	3.4 a	3.2 a	3.3 a
Conventional	3.3 A	4.5 A	4.1 A	4.2 A	4.4 A	3.7 A	4.4 A	4.1 A	3.8 A	4.5 A	3.8 A
Chlorophyll a+b (mg.mL^-1 plant extract)
Commercial	17.1 a	17.1 a	18.6 a	17.0 a	21.6 a	20.8 a	14.1 a	20.8 a	18.3 a	15.0 a	17.7 a
Conventional	16.7 B	23.3 AB *	23.0 AB	21.2 AB	24.5 A	21.8 AB	24.4 AB *	21.4 AB	22.0 AB	25.5 A *	21.9 AB
Carotenoids (mg.mL^-1 plant extract)
Commercial	3.7 a	3.7 a	4.2 a	3.7 a	4.4 a	4.4 a	2.9 a	4.5 a	4.1 a	3.4 a	4.0 a
Conventional	3.8 B	4.9 AB *	4.9 AB	4.9 AB *	5.1 AB	4.7 AB	5.4 A *	4.5 AB	4.7 AB	5.5 A *	4.7 AB

Substrate¹	*R irr*	*G macr*	*C etu*	*R clar*	*G sp*	*Gi mar*	*A morr*	*A scro*	*A sp*	*D heter*
Substrate¹
Symbiotic Efficiency (%)
Commercial	-13.5	59.5	-5.4	121.6	113.5	-24.3	132.4	148.6	0.0	10.8
Conventional	45.0	105.0	65.0	130.0	320.0	160.0	75.0	50.0	190.0	25.0

Instituto Agronômico de Campinas Avenida Barão de Itapura, 1481, 13020-902, Tel.: +55 19 2137-0653, Fax: +55 19 2137-0666 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
E-mail: bragantia@iac.sp.gov.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author: adriana.silveira@sp.gov.br