The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Tansley Review No. 76 Helper bacteria: a new dimension to the mycorrhizal symbiosis
Open accessAbstract
summary: The symbiotic establishment of mycorrhizal fungi on plant roots is affected in various ways by the other microorganisms of the rhizosphere, and more especially by bacteria. This review discusses the case of some of these bacteria which consistently promote mycorrhizal development, leading to the concept of ‘mycorrhization’ helper bacteria (MHBs). Examples of MHB evidence are given from the literature, with special reference to the Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzeisii Mirb. Franco) Laccaria laccata Scop, ex Fr. ectomycorrhizal combination which has been more extensively studied. The fungal specificity of some MHBs and the various mechanisms underlying their effect are discussed, considering five hypotheses: effects on the receptivity of the root, effects on the root‐fungus recognition, effects on the fungal growth, modification of the rhizospheric soil, and effects on the germination of the fungal propagule. MHBs are then considered for their ecological and evolutionary implications, and examples of practical applications in forest nurseries are given: when added to the fungal inoculum, MHBs can improve the success of ectomycorrhizal inoculation of planting stocks with fungi selected for their outstanding growth stimulation after outplanting. The conclusion points out a number of fundamental questions which remain unanswered about mycorrhization helper bacteria and suggests some investigation priorities in this new field of mycorrhiza research. Contents Summary 197 I. Introduction 197 II. Evidence for helper bacteria 198 III. Fungus‐specificity of MHBs 200 IV. Mechanisms underlying the MHB effect 201 V. Ecological and evolutionary implications of MHBs 205 VI. Practical applications of MHBs 206 VII. Conclusions and perspectives 208 Acknowledgements 208 References 208
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Microbial interactions and biocontrol in the rhizosphere
Whipps, J. M. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jexbot/52.suppl_1.487 · Cited by 1,934
Mycorrhizal responses to biochar in soil–concepts and mechanisms
Warnock, D. D., Lehmann, J., Kuyper, T. W., & Rillig, M. C. (2007) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-007-9391-5 · Cited by 1,269
Frey-Klett, P., Burlinson, P., Deveau, A., Barret, M., Tarkka, M., & Sarniguet, A. (2011) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.00020-11 · Cited by 913
Inoculants of plant growth-promoting bacteria for use in agriculture
Bashan, Y. (1998) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/s0734-9750(98)00003-2 · Cited by 804
Forest microbiome: diversity, complexity and dynamics
Baldrian, P. (2016) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1093/femsre/fuw040 · Cited by 710
Metadata
- Authors
- GARBAYE, J.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-10
- Volume
- 128
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 197-210
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2113970864
- Cited by
- 764
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Tansley Review No. 76 Helper bacteria: a new dimension to the mycorrhizal symbiosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1994.tb04003.x
- The paper
- GARBAYE, J. (1994). Tansley Review No. 76 Helper bacteria: a new dimension to the mycorrhizal symbiosis. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1994.tb04003.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.