Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T09:04:08.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Mitigating the effects of water-deficit stress on potato growth and photosynthesis using mycorrhizal fungi and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2024

Ahmad Nemati
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Production and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
Mohammad Ali Aboutalebian*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Production and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
Mehrdad Chaichi
Affiliation:
Department of Seed and Plant Improvement Research, Agriculture Research, Education and Extension Organization, Hamedan, Iran
*
Corresponding author: Mohammad Ali Aboutalebian; Email: m.aboutalebian@basu.ac.ir
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biofertilizers, such as arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB), have been reported to enhance plant growth under water stress conditions. This study aimed to investigate the effect of different biofertilizers on potato photosynthesis and growth under water deficit stress. The experiment was conducted over two crop years (2019 and 2020) using a randomized complete block design with three replications. Four irrigation intervals (70, 90, 110 and 130 mm of cumulative evaporation) and six biofertilizer treatments (PSB, Funneliformis mosseae [FM], Rhizoglomus fasciculatum [RF], PSB + FM, PSB + RF and no use) were applied. Severe moisture stress (130 mm evaporation) compared to no stress (70 mm evaporation) increased substomatal carbon dioxide concentration. The application of biofertilizers improved tuber yield under severe moisture stress, with FM showing the highest increase (62.9%), followed by RF (59.8%) and PSB (48.4%). The use of PSB along with mycorrhizae led to a significant decrease in mycorrhizal colonization percentage at all irrigation levels. The highest percentage of colonization and net photosynthesis was obtained from the application of both mycorrhizal species under irrigation conditions after 70 mm of evaporation. The application of PSB alone resulted in a 14.6% increase in the transpiration rate, additionally, the use of mycorrhiza led to an 18.7% increase in stomatal conductivity compared to no-biofertilizer. The results suggest that the simultaneous use of PSB and mycorrhizae can be effective in mild moisture stress, but in severe moisture stress, the use of mycorrhizal species alone is more effective.

Information

Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Physical and chemical characteristics of soil experimental field at 0–30 cm depth

Figure 1

Table 2. Weather characteristics during two growing seasons (2019 and 2020)

Figure 2

Table 3. The volume of water used at different levels of irrigation (70, 90, 110 and 130 mm) in 2019 and 2020 based on weather condition

Figure 3

Table 4. Analysis of variance (mean squares) related to measured traits during two growing years (2019–2020)

Figure 4

Figure 1. Means comparison for biofertilizer × year interaction on the root mycorrhizal colonization percentage. Error bars represent standard error. Significant differences between treatments are indicated by different letters (α = 0.05).) FM, Funneliformis mosseae; RF, Rhizoglomus fasciculatum; B, phosphate-solubilizing bacteria; BFM, B + FM; BRF, B + RF combination; C, control).

Figure 5

Table 5. Linear regressions between measured traits (y) and irrigation intervals (irrigation after x mm of cumulative evaporation)

Figure 6

Table 6. Means comparison for biofertilizer × irrigation interval interaction during two growing years (2019–2020)

Figure 7

Table 7. Pearson correlation coefficients between measured traits (1: colonization, 2: maximum of leaf area index, 3: total dry weight, 4: transpiration rate, 5: stomatal conductance, 6: mesophyll conductance, 7: substomatal CO2, 8: net photosynthetic rate, 9: tuber yield, 10: water productivity, 11: chlorophyll a, 12: chlorophyll b, 13: tuber phosphorus)

Figure 8

Table 8. Means comparison for main effects of year, irrigation interval and biofertilizer treatments on potato photosynthetic indices

Figure 9

Figure 2. Means comparison for year × irrigation interval interaction on water productivity. Error bars represent standard error Significant differences between treatments are indicated by different letters.

Figure 10

Figure 3. Means comparison for year × biofertilizer interaction on potato water productivity. Error bars represent standard error. Significant differences between treatments are indicated by different letters. (FM, Funneliformis mosseae; RF, Rhizoglomus fasciculatum; B, phosphate-solubilizing bacteria; BFM, B + FM; BRF, B + RF; C, control).