Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Little evidence that farmers should consider abundance or diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi when managing crops

Open access
Ryan, Megan H., Graham, James H.·2018·New Phytologist

Abstract

Contents Summary 1092 I. Introduction 1093 II. Investigating activity of AMF in agroecosystems 1093 III. Crop benefit from AMF: agronomic and mycorrhizal literature differ 1094 IV. Flawed methodology leads to benefits of mycorrhizas being overstated 1094 V. Rigorous methodology suggests low colonisation by AMF can sometimes reduce crop yield 1095 VI. Predicting when mycorrhizas matter for crop yield 1096 VII. Crop genotype 1099 VIII. Fungal genotype 1100 IX. Complex interactions between the mycorrhizal fungal and soil microbial communities 1102 X. Phosphorus‐efficient agroecosystems 1102 XI. Conclusions 1103 Acknowledgements 1104 References 1104 Summary: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are ubiquitous in agroecosystems and often stated to be critical for crop yield and agroecosystem sustainability. However, should farmers modify management to enhance the abundance and diversity of AMF? We address this question with a focus on field experiments that manipulated colonisation by indigenous AMF and report crop yield, or investigated community structure and diversity of AMF. We find that the literature presents an overly optimistic view of the importance of AMF in crop yield due, in part, to flawed methodology in field experiments. A small body of rigorous research only sometimes reports a positive impact of high colonisation on crop yield, even under phosphorus limitation. We suggest that studies vary due to the interaction of environment and genotype (crop and mycorrhizal fungal). We also find that the literature can be overly pessimistic about the impact of some common agricultural practices on mycorrhizal fungal communities and that interactions between AMF and soil microbes are complex and poorly understood. We provide a template for future field experiments and a list of research priorities, including phosphorus‐efficient agroecosystems. However, we conclude that management of AMF by farmers will not be warranted until benefits are demonstrated at the field scale under prescribed agronomic management.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/nph.15308

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 300

Metadata

Authors
Ryan, M. H., & Graham, J. H.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-07-10
Volume
220
Issue
4
Pages
1092-1107
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2834577236
Cited by
300
References
1
FWCI
23.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Little evidence that farmers should consider abundance or diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi when managing crops. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nph.15308
The paper
Ryan, M. H., & Graham, J. H. (2018). Little evidence that farmers should consider abundance or diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi when managing crops. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15308

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.