O iginal a icle
Mic obial conso ium inc eases maize p oduc i i y and educes g ain
phospho us concen a ion unde ield condi ions
Inês Pacheco
a
, Rodol o Fe ei a
a
, Pa ícia Co eia
a,b
, Luís Ca alho
a,b
, Te esa Dias
a,
⇑
, C is ina C uz
a
a
Cen e o Ecology, E olu ion and En i onmen al Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Uni e sidade de Lisboa, Campo G ande, 1749-016 Lisboa, Po ugal
b
Soil i ae Lda., Tec Labs – Cen o de Ino ação Campus da Faculdade de Ciências, Uni e sidade de Lisboa, Campo G ande, 1749-016 Lisboa, Po ugal
a icle in o
A icle his o y:
Recei ed 28 July 2020
Re ised 23 Sep embe 2020
Accep ed 27 Sep embe 2020
A ailable online 8 Oc obe 2020
Keywo ds:
A buscula myco hizal ungi
G ain phy a e
Mic obial conso ium
Phospha e solubilizing bac e ia
Phospho us acquisi ion e iciency
Plan in e nal phospho us use e iciency
abs ac
Backg ound: The use o mic obes ha imp o e plan phospho us (P) use e iciency is an a enue o boos
c op yields while alle ia ing en i onmen al impac s. We es ed h ee mic obial inoculan s (Rhizoglomus
i egula e alone – designa ed AMF; Pseudomonas pu ida alone – designa ed PSB; and R. i egula e and
P. pu ida in conso ium – designa ed AMF+PSB), combined wi h chemical e ilize s, in an in ensi e maize
ag icul u al sys em.
Resul s: As hypo hesized: (i) despi e he na i e soil mic obial communi y and he applica ion o P e il-
ize , he mic obial inoculan s enhanced plan P up ake om he soil by 14–60%, and consequen ly
imp o ed P acquisi ion e iciency; (ii) PSB and AMF+PSB plan s p oduced ±50% mo e biomass pe uni
o P aken up, and consequen ly enhanced plan in e nal P use e iciency (i.e. he biomass p oduced
pe uni o P); and (iii) he combined inocula ion o AMF and PSB p o ided he bes esul s in e ms o
p oduc i i y and P use e iciency. Fu he , he mic obial inoculan s al e ed P alloca ion wi hin he plan ,
educing g ain P concen a ion.
Conclusion: By es ing he mic obial inoculan s unde ield condi ions, ou s udy clea ly shows ha he
mic obial conso ium (AMF+PSB) inc eased maize p oduc i i y, and a he same ime imp o ed P use e i-
ciency. Fu he , he use o hese mic obial inoculan s was shown o be compa ible wi h con en ional
ag icul u al managemen p ac ices.
Ó2020 The Au ho (s). Published by Else ie B.V. on behal o King Saud Uni e si y. This is an open access
a icle unde he CC BY-NC-ND license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. In oduc ion
Phospho us (P) is an essen ial mac onu ien o all li e o ms,
which g ea ly limi s eco- and ag osys ems’ p oduc i i y. To mee
he needs o a g owing human popula ion and hei changing con-
sump ion pa e ns, ag icul u al p oduc ion was d as ically in ensi-
ied and so was he use o P e ilize s (Childe s e al., 2011). Rock
phospha e (a high-quali y P sou ce used in con en ional ag icul-
u e) is a non- enewable ini e esou ce whose ese es a e quickly
being o e exploi ed, and he e o e p ices a e expec ed o inc ease
d ama ically in he nea u u e (Co dell and Whi e, 2011;
Reijnde s, 2014; Dias e al., 2015). Despi e his o eseen limi a ion
o he use o P e ilize s, hei applica ion keeps ising (Shephe d
e al., 2016) as ood demand is o ecas ed o double by 2050. Fu -
he , 60–90% o he P applied o soils as e ilize is apidly immo-
bilized, making i una ailable o plan s (Richa dson and Simpson,
2011; Es ada e al., 2013; Melo e al., 2016). Consequen ly, P accu-
mula es in ag icul u al soils and some con ain mo e P han ecom-
mended (e.g. Eu opean soils), bu o ensu e high p oduc i i y P
e ilize s con inue o be applied. This excess use o P e ilize s
causes se e e nega i e en i onmen al impac s (Reijnde s, 2014;
Childe s e al., 2011), namely eu ophica ion o wa e bodies
(Hua e al., 2016). This global P pa adox c ea es an u gen need
o cleane ag onomic p ac ices capable o boos ing c op yields
while imp o ing P use e iciency.
Imp o ing P use e iciency in ag icul u e can be achie ed by
inc easing plan p oduc ion main aining a gi en a e o P e ilize
o by p oducing he same wi h lowe P-inpu s (Rose e al., 2013;
Richa dson e al., 2009). The imp o emen o P use e iciency could
be accomplished by imp o ing plan in e nal P use e iciency
(IPUE) and/o inc easing P up ake om he soil (P-acquisi ion e i-
ciency; PAE) (Rose and Wissuwa, 2012; Veneklaas e al., 2012;
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.09.053
1319-562X/Ó2020 The Au ho (s). Published by Else ie B.V. on behal o King Saud Uni e si y.
This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY-NC-ND license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
⇑
Co esponding au ho a : Faculdade de Ciências da Uni e sidade de Lisboa,
Edi ício C2, Piso 5, sala 2.05.37, Campo G ande, 1749-016 Lisboa, Po ugal.
E-mail add ess: [email p o ec ed] (T. Dias).
Pee e iew unde esponsibili y o King Saud Uni e si y.
P oduc ion and hos ing by Else ie
Saudi Jou nal o Biological Sciences 28 (2021) 232–237
Con en s lis s a ailable a ScienceDi ec
Saudi Jou nal o Biological Sciences
jou nal homepage: www.sciencedi ec .com
Wang e al., 2010). A combina ion be ween hese wo s a egies is
desi able in bo h high- and low-inpu ag icul u al sys ems (Rose
and Wissuwa, 2012; Heue e al., 2017). Since plan IPUE has se -
e al de ini ions (e.g., g ain yield pe uni o P e ilize applied;
plan biomass pe P p esen in speci ic issues), i is no clea
how o imp o e i (Rose and Wissuwa, 2012). By con as , s a e-
gies o imp o e plan PAE include molecula plan b eeding, engi-
nee ing ansgenic plan s and inocula ing bene icial mic obes such
as plan g ow h-p omo ing hizobac e ia (PGPR) and myco hizae
(Ramaeke s e al., 2010). So a , plan b eeding and gene ic engi-
nee ing ha e no gua an eed highe PAE, and hei impac on soil
conse a ion, quali y and biodi e si y ha e no been ho oughly
explo ed (Rose e al., 2013). By con as , inocula ing bene icial
mic obes, combined wi h echnologically ad anced ag icul u al
p ac ices, is becoming an impo an a enue o imp o e PAE, and
consequen ly P use e iciency.
Bene icial mic obes (e.g. in he o m o bio e ilize s) can con-
ol nu ien bioa ailabili y in he soil by es ablishing mo e com-
plex in e ac ions wi h he soil s uc u e, and a e mo e e icien a
lowe nu ien le els han a highe (Wa on e al., 2015; Wel in
e al., 2018; Dias e al., 2015). Indeed, mic obes play a key ole in
he P cycle and among he wide di e si y o soil mic obes, a buscu-
la myco hizal ungi (AMF) and phospha e solubilizing bac e ia
(PSB) a e di ec ly in ol ed in P u no e and plan P acquisi ion
(Zhang e al., 2014). Fu he , plan s na u ally in e ac wi h bo h
AMF and PSB (Owen e al., 2015). Many s udies poin ou he ben-
e icial e ec s o AMF (Smi h and Read, 2008) and/o PSB inocula-
ion (Zhang e al., 2014, 2016; Melo e al., 2018; O doñez e al.,
2016) o plan g ow h, P up ake and as a biological ool o eco-
es o a ion (Wahid e al., 2016). Howe e , mos o hese bene icial
e ec s we e obse ed in mic ocosm expe imen s o in s e ile soil
(Rod iguez and Sande s, 2015). These con olled expe imen s did
no ake in o accoun how he na i e soil mic obial communi y
shapes AMF’s and PSB’s impac on hos plan pe o mance. The e-
o e, AMF and/o PSB inocula ion has o be es ed unde ield con-
di ions and ‘no mal’ managemen p ac ices o a gi en c op.
Ou objec i e was o es , unde ield condi ions, he e ec o
h ee mic obial inoculan s (wi h po en ial o become bio e ilize s:
AMF alone, PSB alone and AMF+PSB) on imp o ing P use e iciency
in an in ensi e ag icul u al sys em. We ocused on a ce eal c op,
maize (Zea mays L.) which p o ides 15% o he wo ld’s p o ein
and 20% o he wo ld’s calo ies (Nuss and Tanumiha djo, 2010),
and is e y P demanding (e.g. e ilize doses commonly ange om
10 o 250 kg ha
1
in Eu ope) (de Va ennes, 2003). Fu he , as in
o he ce eals, 60–85% o he P acqui ed by maize plan s is alloca ed
o seeds (i.e., g ains) in he o m o phy a e, which is essen ial o
seed ge mina ion and seedling igou (Yamaji e al., 2017; Rose
e al., 2013). Howe e , phy a e canno be diges ed by humans o
o he monogas ic animals, so ha all P in he o m o phy a e
esul s in la ge quan i ies o P in animal exc emen s, g ea ly con-
ibu ing o eu ophica ion (Nese and Co dell, 2012; Co dell and
Whi e, 2011). I also dec eases o he nu ien s’ abso p ion because
phy ic acid binds wi h ions, such as zinc, calcium, i on and magne-
sium (Hu ell e al., 2003) esul ing in e y insoluble sal s wi h
poo bioa ailabili y. Reducing P g ain concen a ion can imp o e
g ain quali y by inc easing i s nu i ional alue and diges ibili y,
and educe he en i onmen al impac s associa ed wi h P losses
h ough exc e a (Veneklaas e al., 2012). The e o e, in sol ing he
P pa adox, seeds P concen a ion should be educed wi hou com-
p omising plan g ow h o igou (Rose e al., 2013; Yamaji e al.,
2017).
As bo h AMF (Smi h and Read, 2008) and PSB (Melo e al., 2018;
O doñez e al., 2016; Zhang e al., 2014, 2016) enhance P bioa ail-
abili y o plan s, we hypo hesized ha despi e he na i e soil
mic obial communi y and he applica ion o P e ilize , he mic o-
bial inoculan s would enhance plan P up ake om he soil and,
consequen ly imp o e PAE. Besides he well-known imp o emen
in P bioa ailabili y, AMF and PSB can al e plan g ow h and nu i-
ion (Melo e al., 2018) so ha we hypo hesized ha inocula ed
plan s would p oduce mo e biomass pe uni o P aken up, and
consequen ly enhance plan IPUE, conside ed as he a io be ween
biomass and i s P con en (Veneklaas e al., 2012; Rose e al., 2011;
Rose and Wissuwa, 2012; an de Wiel e al., 2016). As a esul o
enhanced plan IPUE, biomass P concen a ion ends o dec ease,
including ha o he g ain (e.g. educed phy a e concen a ion).
Finally, as AMF p oduce ex ensi e ex a adical hyphae in he soil,
which a e a habi a o o he mic obes, and coope a ion be ween
AMF and PSB has been shown in i o (Zhang e al., 2016, 2018)
we hypo hesized ha he combined inocula ion o AMF and PSB
would p o ide he bes esul s in e ms o p oduc i i y and P use
e iciency.
2. Ma e ial and me hods
2.1. Expe imen al design
Ou expe imen consis ed o 1 ac o : mic obial inocula ion. The
design was a comple e andomized block design o 3 blocks, each
con aining 4 pa cels, one o each ea men : con ol, AMF inocula-
ion (designa ed AMF), PSB inocula ion (designa ed PSB) and com-
bined inocula ion o AMF and PSB (designa ed AMF+PSB). Each
pa cel had an a ea o 2.25 m
2
and each block had a o al a ea o
27 m
2
(3 9 m). To emo e bounda y e ec s, plan s wi hin in
an a ea o 5.4 m
2
in bo h he eas and wes side o he expe imen al
a ea we e conside ed plan gua d ows and we e no sampled.
The AMF inoculum consis ed o p opagules and spo es o Rhi-
zoglomus i egula e, which was pu chased om Symbiom
(h ps://www.symbiom.cz/en). AMF p opagules and spo es we e
isola ed and coun ed o co espond o 2.5x10
6
AMF spo es ha
1
,
in ag eemen wi h he ecommenda ions o comme cial p oduc s
ials (Cozzolino e al., 2013). A he ime o sowing (T0), AMF
inoculum was sp ead manually on he soil along he plan ing u -
ows co esponding o AMF and AMF+PSB ea men s.
The PSB inoculum consis ed o Pseudomonas pu ida (and he
espec i e cul u e medium) which had been isola ed om a Po -
uguese ag icul u al soil and belongs o he Soil i ae (h ps://soil-
i ae.com) PGPR collec ion. These bac e ia we e cha ac e ized as
PSB due o i s capaci y o solubilize i-calcium phospha e and phy-
a e in i o. PSB was inocula ed o e he a ea co esponding o PSB
and AMF+PSB ea men s wi hin he ideal dose ange epo ed by
Bashan (1986): 1.5 10
7
CFUs plan
1
, which co esponds o 10
8
CFUs pa cel
1
and 10
12
CFUs ha
1
. The cul u e b o h con aining
he bac e ia was dilu ed o achie e he desi ed concen a ion
(10
12
CFUs ha
1
) and was applied manually oge he wi h he
seeds along he plan ing u ows. A second inocula ion o PSB
(10
12
CFUs ha
1
) was pe o med 15 days a e sowing (Rakiami
e al., 2019; Cip iano e al., 2016).
AMF+PSB was a combina ion o he wo mic obial inoculan s
using he same doses. Con ol pa cels we e no inocula ed.
2.2. Field si e and a ming p ac ices
This expe imen was conduc ed in a a m, loca ed in Lou inhã,
Lisboa, Po ugal (39°16
0
32.3
0
’N9°17
0
27.4
0
’ W), om ea ly June
o la e Sep embe 2016 (110 days). Daily mean ai empe a u e
was 24 °C anging be ween 16 and 32 °C, ela i e humidi y anged
be ween 53 and 68%, acco ding o Ins i u o Po uguês do Ma e da
A mos e a (IPMA). These alues ep esen he a e age ob ained
om si e equidis an me eo ological s a ions.
The soil had a coa se sand ex u e, 0.8% o o ganic ma e , pH
(H
2
O) 6.3 and ex ac able P (Egné -Riehm me hod) o 442 ppm
Inês Pacheco, R. Fe ei a, Pa ícia Co eia e al. Saudi Jou nal o Biological Sciences 28 (2021) 232–237
233
(analysis pe o med by Labo a ó io de Solos e Plan as, UTAD, Po -
ugal, 2016).
The expe imen al ield is cha ac e ized by a egime o in ensi e
ag icul u e, wi h o a ion: cabbages, po a oes and occasionally
maize. Field is e ilized wi h backg ound e ilize and op-
d essing e ilize . All cul u es a e i iga ed h ough a dispe sion
sys em.
Zea mays L., cul i a Since e (Syngen a) can be used o o age
and g ain p oduc ion. Seeds we e hand sowed on he 4 h o June
2016. Plan s we e g own 0.75 m apa be ween ows and wi h
0.20 m spacing along he ow, he equi alen o ~67 000 plan s
ha
1
(da Sil a, 2013). Be o e sowing, a basal e iliza ion o 16 kg
NO
3

, 48 kg NHO
4
+
,96kgP
2
O
5
and 96 kg K
2
Oha
1
was applied. This
was ollowed by a op-d essing e iliza ion, 6 weeks a e sowing,
o 60 kg NHO
4
+
, 180 kg NH
2
CONH
2
,96kgP
2
O
5
and 120 kg K
2
Oha
1
(acco ding o he ecommenda ions o ADP Fe ilizan es).
2.3. Sampling and analysis
The expe imen was comple ed when plan s eached physio-
logical ma u i y and g ains we e on he milk o dough phenolog-
ical phase. A ha es (22 h Sep embe ), plan s we e manually
cu wi h loppe s. Ha es was limi ed o a cen al sampling a ea
o 1.35 m
2
pe pa cel o 16.2 m
2
, wi h all bo de plan s being
excluded as bo de plan s end o be mo e igo ous and mo e p o-
duc i e han hose ha g ow inside he expe imen al uni s, due o
he smalle e ec o compe i ion be ween plan s and di e en
ligh exposu e.
Maize abo eg ound issues we e classi ied as plan shoo . The
numbe o ille s pe plan was eco ded and shoo s we e sepa-
a ed in culm (lea es included) and ea maize (cobs and g ain)
and hen weigh ed. F esh weigh (Fw) o plan s om each pa cel
was measu e in he ield wi h a ield weighing scale (Ke n CXB). A
sub-sample o 3 plan s pe pa cel ( andomly chosen) we e d ied
o cons an mass a 65 °C and he d y weigh (Dw) o shoo s
(shoo biomass), culm and cobs (s o e biomass), and g ain (g ain
biomass) we e eco ded (p ecision ±0.01 g, model PGW 3502e
digi al balance). D ied g ain and h ee lea es om each plan
we e g ound using a mill o sphe es (Re sch MM 2000). G ound
samples we e used o de e mine g ain and lea P concen a ion,
using an Op ical Emission Spec oscopy a e acid diges ion
(Huang and Schul e 1985) (analysis pe o med by Cen o de Eda-
ología y Biología Aplicada del Segu a – CEBAS-CSIC – Mu cia,
Spain 2016).
To cha ac e ize he soil, samples we e collec ed om ba e soil
(composi e sample, n = 5) un il a maximum dep h o 15 cm. Sam-
ples we e ai -d ied and hen analysed o chemical and physical
p ope ies: ex ac ed P (Egné -Riehm me hod), o ganic ma e
quan i ica ion and pH (H
2
O) (analysis pe o med by Labo a ó io
de Solos e Plan as, UTAD, Po ugal, 2016).
2.4. Calcula ions and s a is ics
The a e age Fw o culm and ea maize o each pa cel and he
a e age shoo Dw o he 3 sub-samples we e ep esen ed in onne
pe hec a e ( ha
1
) by mul iplying he a e age pa cel alue o Fw
o Dw by he numbe o plan densi y used pe hec a e (~67 000
plan s). Shoo Fw pe hec a e was de ined as g een o age and
shoo Dw as he biomass.
The d y ma e con en o he g een o age (%) was ob ained by
mul iplying plan biomass (kg) pe 100 and di iding by he g een
o age (kg).
Phospho us acquisi ion e iciency (PAE) which ep esen s he
amoun o P aken up pe plan (Wang e al., 2010; Vandamme
e al., 2016) was e alua ed h ough shoo P ex ac ion and P e il-
ize eco e y e iciency, as ollows:
P ex ac ion ¼BiomassðDw issueÞ
P issue concen a ion Plan densi y ð2:1Þ
P e ilize eco e y e iciency ¼P ex ac ionðshoo Þ
P applied in he ield ð2:2Þ
P ex ac ion (kg ha
1
) e lec s he o al P con en in plan issues:
shoo , s o e and g ain. This was calcula ed by combining g ain
(g) and s o e biomass (g) wi h espec i e P concen a ion (g
P/100 g plan ) o each ea men and was es ima ed o a hec a e
by mul iplying he esul wi h plan densi y, as depic ed in o mula
(2.1). We used lea concen a ion o es ima e s o e concen a ion
(Ca aco and Calou o, 2006). Shoo P ex ac ion was ob ained
h ough he sum o g ain and s o e P ex ac ion, while shoo con-
cen a ion was ob ained by di iding shoo P ex ac ion by shoo
biomass. P e ilize eco e y e iciency (kg ha
1
) e lec s plan ’s
abili y o acqui e nu ien s applied o he soil (Baliga e al., 2001)
and was calcula ed as shoo P ex ac ion (kg) di ided by he amoun
o P e ilize applied (kg ha
1
), as depic ed in o mula (2.2).
Plan In e nal Phospho us U iliza ion E iciency (IPUE) was
e alua ed h ough he amoun o biomass (Shoo , S o e o G ain
Dw) p oduced pe uni o P p esen in he shoo (shoo P ex ac-
ion) (Rose and Wissuwa, 2012), as ollows:
IPUE ¼BiomassðDw issueÞ
P ex ac ionðshoo Þð2:3Þ
IPUE (kg Dw kg P ex ac ed ha
1
) was exp essed in kg o issue bio-
mass p oduced pe kg o P p esen in he shoo in a hec a e, o mula
(2.3).
The e ec o he inoculan s on maize pe o mance was es ed
using one-way analysis o a iance (ANOVA). Di e ences among
ea men means we e de e mina e by Tukey es (p 0.05). In
all cases, p elimina y analyses we e pe o med o ensu e ha he e
was no iola ion o s a is ical assump ions (including he Le ene’s
es o check o homogenei y o a iances). SPSS ( e sion 250,
IBM, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used o all hese analyses. G aphs
we e de eloped wi h G aphPad P ism e sion 6 (G aphPad So -
wa e, San Diego, CA).
3. Resul s
3.1. E ec o he mic obial inoculan s on maize p oduc i i y
Plan inocula ion wi h PSB alone (PSB) and in combina ion wi h
AMF (AMF+PSB) p omo ed o age p oduc i i y (i.e. g een o age
Fw) compa ed o he con ol plan s (inc emen s o 41% and 48%,
espec i ely). Inocula ion wi h AMF alone (AMF) ailed o inc ease
o age p oduc i i y (ANOVA g een o age p oduc i i y F3,6 = 9.90,
P0.01) (Fig. 1). The mic obial inoculan s did no a ec Fw pa i-
ioning be ween culm and ea s (ANOVA a io Ea /Culm F3,6 = 0.82,
P > 0.05).
Al hough no signi ican , inocula ion wi h PSB alone (PSB) and
in combina ion wi h AMF (AMF+PSB) ended o p oduce bigge
plan s ela i ely o he con ol (inc emen o 53% and 65%, espec-
i ely) (ANOVA biomass F3,6 = 3.08, P > 0.05) (Table 1). Mic obial
inoculan s did no change he d y weigh pa i ioning be ween
s o e and g ain (ANOVA a io G ain/S o e Dw F3,6 = 0.25,
P > 0.05), no e en he Dw o each componen , when conside ed
sepa a ely (ANOVA S o e Dw F3,6 = 2.77, P > 0.05; G ain Dw
F3,6 = 3.54, P > 0.05).
3.2. E ec o he mic obial inoculan s on P use
PSB inc eased P acquisi ion e iciency (PAE) by inc easing P
con en (Table 1), while AMF+PSB inc eased plan in e nal P use
Inês Pacheco, R. Fe ei a, Pa ícia Co eia e al. Saudi Jou nal o Biological Sciences 28 (2021) 232–237
234
e iciency (IPUE – Fig. 2). Only inocula ion wi h PSB alone (PSB)
inc eased shoo P ex ac ion: PSB plan s had 60% mo e P in hei
shoo s (s o e and g ain) when compa ed o con ol plan s
(ANOVA shoo P ex ac ion F3,6 = 4.88, P 0.05 – Table 1). Pa
o his ex a P was alloca ed in o he s o e , as s o e om PSB
plan s had app oxima ely 31% mo e P in hei shoo s han con ol
plan s (ANOVA s o e P ex ac ion F3,6 = 8.56, P 0.05). By con-
as , g ain P ex ac ion showed no di e ences be ween ea men s
(ANOVA g ain P ex ac ion F3,6 = 0.36, P > 0.05). Thus, he di e -
ences in shoo P ex ac ion e lec ed he di e ences in s o e P
con en . Only inocula ion wi h PSB alone (PSB) imp o ed P e il-
ize eco e y e iciency compa ed o con ol (ANOVA P e ilize
eco e y e iciency F3,6 = 4.88, P 0.05).
Only plan s inocula ed wi h AMF+PSB p oduced mo e shoo
biomass (including g ain) pe uni o P p esen in he shoo , when
compa ed o he plan s ea ed wi h he o he inoculan s (ANOVA
IPUEShoo F3,6 = 12.82, P 0.01; IPUEG ain F3,6 = 13.91, P 0.01)
(Fig. 2). The e o e, AMF+PSB enhanced plan s IPUE.
3.3. P concen a ion in plan issues
Only AMF+PSB plan s had signi ican ly lowe shoo P concen a-
ion han es o he plan s (ANOVA P concen a ion shoo
F3,6 = 17.13, P 0.01). Fu he , no di e ence in shoo P concen a-
ion was de ec ed be ween con ol, AMF and PSB plan s (Table 2).
The mic obial inoculan s had no e ec on s o e P concen a ion
(ANOVA P concen a ion s o e F3,6 = 9.60, P 0.01) bu AMF
+PSB plan s had lowe s o e P concen a ion han AMF and PSB
plan s. Las ly, con ol plan s had he highes P concen a ion in
he g ain (ANOVA P Concen a ion G ain F3,6 = 64.58, P 0.001).
Among inocula ed plan s, AMF+PSB had lowe g ain P concen a-
ion han AMF inocula ed plan s. PSB e ec did no di e om
AMF and AMF+PSB.
The mic obial inoculan s we e able o educe g ain P concen a-
ion (Table 2) and consequen ly g ain phy a e. Al hough, his di -
e ence was no de ec ed in he s o e , AMF+PSB ea ed plan s
had lowe s o e P concen a ion han plan s ea ed wi h he
o he inoculan s. O e all, AMF+PSB plan s we e he mos e icien
in educing shoo P concen a ion, a dec ease o abou 30% com-
pa ed o con ol plan s.
4. Discussion
4.1. Imp o ing plan p oduc i i y
The alues o p oduc i i y we ob ained (Fig. 1) a e wi hin he
ange epo ed o his a ie y (Ca aco and Calou o, 2006), hus
alida ing he da a ob ained in his ield ial applying ‘no mal’
managemen p ac ices o maize. As hypo hesized, and in ag ee-
men wi h o he s udies (Owen e al., 2015; O doñez e al.,
2016), inocula ion wi h PSB alone (PSB) o in combina ion wi h
AMF (AMF+PSB), enhanced plan p oduc i i y unde ield condi-
ions. The mic obial e ec was signi ican o g een o age (c op
Fw – Fig. 1) bu no o biomass (Table 1), sugges ing ha he
mic obes alone o in combina ion p omo ed di e en e ec s on
plan wa e up ake and wa e sa ing s a egies (Richa dson e al.,
2011). Non-exclusi ely, he inc eased p oduc i i y we obse ed
may be ela ed wi h changes in plan ho monal balance induced
by plan -mic obial in e ac ion (Nadeem e al., 2014). I may also
e lec he in luence o he inoculan s in delaying plan de elop-
men as in he case o ce eals wa e de ici is a main ac o igge -
ing and accele a ing g ain p oduc ion (de Va ennes, 2003).
4.2. Imp o ing P use e iciency while educing g ain P concen a ion
P oducing plan s wi h lowe P concen a ions is a way o
achie e highe plan IPUE (Veneklaas e al., 2012; Rose e al.,
2011). Howe e , i P concen a ion alls below ha ecommended
o egula plan g ow h and de elopmen (i.e. 0.2–0.5%) (de
Va ennes, 2003), P de iciency occu s. In ou expe imen , all inocu-
la ed plan s showed shoo P concen a ions (Table 2) simila o he
ecommended ones showing ha he mic obial inoculan s we e
able o educe P concen a ion wi hou igge ing P limi a ion.
Ano he a ge is educing g ain P concen a ion and conse-
quen ly phy a e (Yamaji e al., 2017; Rose e al., 2013). Indeed,
he mic obial inoculan s changed P alloca ion wi hin he plan ,
esul ing in lowe g ain P concen a ion (Table 2). The amoun o
phy a e p esen in plan seeds and g ains anges om 0.5 o 5%
o Dw and ideally i should be educed o 0.025% o Dw o less o
minimize P losses (Hu ell e al., 2003). Al hough PSB inocula ion
was no he mos e icien ea men a imp o ing p oduc i i y,
PSB inocula ed plan s we e he mos e icien a expo ing P o
he shoo as shown by s o e P (Table 1) con en . Mos P in he
s o e is in he phospha e o m, which is essen ial o li es ock
nu i ion (Richa dson e al., 2011). Since P con en is usually low
in o ages and/o li es ock ha e low P assimila ion e iciencies
(due o su plus o phy a e), die a y P supplemen s a e o en
equi ed (Sha pley e al., 2000). The e o e, by p oducing eed o
Fig. 1. E ec o he mic obial inoculan s on maize g een o age p oduc i i y.
S acked ba s (g een and yellow) show he esh weigh o ege a i e (culm) and
ep oduc i e (ea ) s uc u es. Pe cen ages on op o he ba s show he e ec in
maize g een o age p omo ed by he espec i e inoculan when compa ed o
con ol plan s. Di e en le e s show signi icance a 5% le el ( o o al g een o age
p oduc i i y), acco ding o Tuckey’s HSD es . Ba s a e he mean ± SD (n = 3 plo s).
Table 1
E ec o he mic obial inoculan s on biomass, P ex ac ion a shoo , s o e (culm and cobs), and g ain le el and P e ilize eco e y e iciency. Fo each line, di e en le e s
(mean ± SD o 3 sampling plo s, n = 3) show signi icance a 5% le el (no le e s mean no signi ican ), acco ding o Tuckey’s HSD es .
T ea men Con ol AMF PSB AMF+PSB
Biomass ( Dw ha
1
) 28.8 ± 5.3 35.1 ± 9.0 44.1 ± 7.7 47.6 ± 9.0
Shoo P ex ac ion (kg ha
1
) 85.5 ± 8.8 b115.4 ± 11.3 ab 136.8 ± 5.6 a98.4 ± 7.8 ab
S o e P ex ac ion (kg ha
1
) 77.8 ± 10.9b84.2 ± 10.6 ab 102.2 ± 6.4 a68.4 ± 7.4b
G ain P ex ac ion (kg ha
1
) 25.6 ± 5.7 18.3 ± 0.8 22.0 ± 2.9 21.4 ± 0.9
P e ilize eco e y e iciency (kg P con en shoo kg
1
P
2
O
5
supplied) 0.44 ± 0.07b0.60 ± 0.11 ab 0.71 ± 0.11 a0.51 ± 0.04 ab
Inês Pacheco, R. Fe ei a, Pa ícia Co eia e al. Saudi Jou nal o Biological Sciences 28 (2021) 232–237
235
highe P nu i ional alue and g ain wi h lowe phy a e (Table 2),
inocula ion wi h PSB could con ibu e o educe P eed supple-
men s and, consequen ly, educe P losses in li es ock exc e a. This
win-win scena io mee s a me s’ objec i es and is an excellen
a gumen o u he s udies wi h his PSB isola e (Pseudomonas
pu ida), and possibly he de elopmen o a bio e ilize .
The mic obial conso ium AMF+PSB educed shoo P concen a-
ion by 30% (Table 2) and p oduced mo e g een o age (Fig. 1)
showing ha hese plan s used less P o p oduce mo e g een o age
(and ended o p oduce mo e biomass – Table 1) han he o he
ea men s. Since AMF+PSB also showed he highes plan IPUE
(Fig. 2), i could help s eng hen ood p oduc ion pe uni o a ea,
and sus ainably manage he amoun o P e ilize applied in a m-
ing sys ems. AMF+PSB is he mos p omising mic obial inoculan o
be used in sus ainable ag icul u e, and should be u he es ed
combined wi h he 30% educ ion in P inpu s ecommended by
he Eu opean Union. This mic obial conso ium (AMF+PSB) could
be a key con ibu o in p oducing high alue ood esou ces wi h
ze o inc ease in land deg ada ion while educing nega i e en i on-
men al impac s. Acco ding o he Eu opean ag onomic ules, hese
esul s a e a p omising asse owa ds a bio-economic managemen
ag icul u e wi h signi ican en i onmen al epe cussions.
5. Conclusion
By es ing he mic obial inoculan s unde ield condi ions, ou
s udy clea ly showed ha he mic obial conso ium (AMF+PSB)
inc eased maize p oduc i i y, and a he same ime imp o ed P
use e iciency and educed g ain P concen a ion. Fu he , he use
o hese mic obial inoculan s was shown o be compa ible wi h
con en ional ag icul u al managemen p ac ices.
Decla a ion o Compe ing In e es
The au ho s decla e ha hey ha e no known compe ing inan-
cial in e es s o pe sonal ela ionships ha could ha e appea ed
o in luence he wo k epo ed in his pape .
Acknowledgmen s
We a e g a e ul o João Fe ei a o making he expe imen al
si e a ailable and o he Re iewe s o hei commen s and
sugges ions.
Funding
This s udy was suppo ed by Po uguese unds h ough Fun-
dação pa a a Ciência e a Tecnologia (p ojec s PTDC/AGR-
PRO/1852/2014 and UIDB/00329/2020, and a pos doc g an
SFRH/BPD/85419/2012 o Te esa Dias) and h ough he p ojec
PDR2020-20.2.4-FEADER-055319 (a mas e g an o Inês Pacheco).
Re e ences
Baliga , V.C., Fage ia, N.K., He, Z.L., 2001. Nu ien use e iciency in plan s. Commun.
Soil Sci. Plan 32 (7–8), 921–950. h ps://doi.o g/10.1081/css-100104098.
Bashan, Y., 1986. Signi icance o iming and le el o inocula ion wi h hizosphe e
bac e ia on whea plan s. Soil Biol. Biochem. 18 (3), 297–301. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1016/0038-0717(86)90064-7.
Ca aco, M., Calou o, F., 2006. P odução in eg ada das cul u as – pas agens e
o agens. Di eção Ge al de P o eção das Cul u as, Oei as.
Childe s, D.L., Co man, J., Edwa ds, M., Else , J.J., 2011. Sus ainabili y challenges o
phospho us and ood: solu ions om closing he human phospho us cycle.
Bioscience 61 (2), 117–124. h ps://doi.o g/10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.6.
Cip iano, M.A.P., Lupa ini, M., Lopes-San os, L., da Sil a, M.J., Roesch, L.F.W.,
Des é ano, S.A.L., F ei as, S.S., Ku amae, E.E., Sessi sch, A., 2016. Le uce and
hizosphe e mic obiome esponses o g ow h p omo ing Pseudomonas species
unde ield condi ions. FEMS Mic obiol. Ecol. 92 (12). h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/
emsec/ iw197.
Co dell, D., Whi e, S., 2011. Peak Phospho us: cla i ying he key issues o a igo ous
deba e abou long- e m phospho us secu i y. Sus ainabili y 3 (10), 2027–2049.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/su3102027.
Cozzolino, V., Di Meo, V., Piccolo, A., 2013. Impac o a buscula myco hizal ungi
applica ions on maize p oduc ion and soil phospho us a ailabili y. J. Geochem.
Explo . 129, 40–44. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.gexplo.2013.02.006.
da Sil a, I.O., 2013. A aliação de p odução de milho doce pa a consumo em
maça oca em ês da as de semen ei a di e en es. Uni e sidade dos Aço es.
de Va ennes, A., 2003. P odu i idade dos solos e ambien e. Escola Edi o a, Lisboa.
Dias, T., Dukes, A., An unes, P.M., 2015. Accoun ing o soil bio ic e ec s on soil
heal h and c op p oduc i i y in he design o c op o a ions. J. Sci. Food Ag ic. 95
(3), 447–454. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/js a.6565.
Es ada, G.A., Baldani, V.L.D., de Oli ei a, D.M., U quiaga, S., Baldani, J.I., 2013.
Selec ion o phospha e-solubilizing diazo ophic He baspi illum and
Bu kholde ia s ains and hei e ec on ice c op yield and nu ien up ake.
Plan Soil 369 (1–2), 115–129. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11104-012-1550-7.
Heue , S., Gaxiola, R., Schilling, R., He e a-Es ella, L., López-A edondo, D.,
Wissuwa, M., Delhaize, E., Rouached, H., 2017. Imp o ing phospho us use
e iciency: a complex ai wi h eme ging oppo uni ies. Plan J 90 (5), 868–885.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/ pj.13423.
Hua, K.K., Zhang, W.J., Guo, Z.B., Wang, D.Z., Oenema, O., 2016. E alua ing c op
esponse and en i onmen al impac o he accumula ion o phospho us due o
long- e m manu ing o e isol soil in no he n China. Ag . Ecosys . En i on.
219, 101–110. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.agee.2015.12.008.
Hu ell, R.F., Reddy, M.B., Juille a , M.A., Cook, J.D., 2003. Deg ada ion o phy ic acid
in ce eal po idges imp o es i on abso p ion by human subjec s. Am. J. Clin.
Nu . 77 (5), 1213–1219.
Melo, J., Ca olino, M., Ca alho, L., Co eia, P., Ten ei o, R., Cha es, S., Melei o, A.I., de
Souza, S.B., Dias, T., C uz, C., Ramos, A.C., 2016. C op managemen as a d i ing
o ce o plan g ow h p omo ing hizobac e ia physiology. Sp inge Plus 5.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1186/s40064-016-3232-z.
Melo, J., Ca alho, L., Co eia, P., de Souza, S.B., Dias, T., San ana, M., Ca olino, M.,
Aguia , N.O., Canellas, L.P., C uz, C., Ramos, A.C., 2018. Con en ional a ming
dis up s coope a ion among phospha e solubilising bac e ia isola ed om
Ca ica papaya’s hizosphe e. Appl. Soil Ecol. 124, 284–288. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.11.015.
Nadeem, S.M., Ahmad, M., Zahi , Z.A., Ja aid, A., Ash a , M., 2014. The ole o
myco hizae and plan g ow h p omo ing hizobac e ia (PGPR) in imp o ing
c op p oduc i i y unde s ess ul en i onmen s. Bio echnol. Ad . 32 (2), 429–
448. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.bio echad .2013.12.005.
Fig. 2. E ec o he mic obial inoculan s on plan in e nal P use e iciency (IPUE).
S acked ba s (g een and yellow) ep esen he pa i ion o he a e age IPUE a
s o e (culm and cobs) and g ain le el. Each ba ep esen s he mean o 3 sampling
plo s ± SD (n = 3). Di e en le e s show signi icance a 5% le el ( o o al IPUE),
acco ding o Tuckey’s HSD es .
Table 2
E ec o he mic obial inoculan s on P concen a ion o shoo , s o e (culm and cobs)
and g ain. Fo each column, di e en le e s (mean ± SD o 3 sampling plo s, n = 3)
show signi icance a 5% le el, acco ding o Tuckey’s HSD es .
T ea men Shoo [P] (%) S o e [P] (%) G ain [P] (%)
Con ol 0.30 ± 0.01 a0.29 ± 0.02 ab 0.32 ± 0.02 a
AMF 0.33 ± 0.03 a0.37 ± 0.04 a0.23 ± 0.01 b
PSB 0.31 ± 0.02 a0.34 ± 0.03 a0.21 ± 0.03 bc
AMF+PSB 0.21 ± 0.03 b0.22 ± 0.04 b0.19 ± 0.01 c
Inês Pacheco, R. Fe ei a, Pa ícia Co eia e al. Saudi Jou nal o Biological Sciences 28 (2021) 232–237
236

Nese , T.-S., Co dell, D., 2012. Global phospho us sca ci y: iden i ying syne gies o a
sus ainable u u e. J. Sci. Food Ag ic. 92 (1), 2–6.
Nuss, E.T., Tanumiha djo, S.A., 2010. Maize: a pa amoun s aple c op in he con ex
o global nu i ion. Comp . Re . Food Sci. F. 9 (4), 417–436. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1111/j.1541-4337.2010.00117.x.
O doñez, Y.M., Fe nandez, B.R., La a, L.S., Rod iguez, A., U ibe-Velez, D., Sande s, I.R.,
2016. Bac e ia wi h phospha e solubilizing capaci y al e myco hizal ungal
g ow h bo h inside and ou side he oo and in he p esence o na i e mic obial
communi ies. Plos One 11 (6). h ps://doi.o g/10.1371/jou nal.pone.0154438.
Owen, D., Williams, A.P., G i i h, G.W., Wi he s, P.J.A., 2015. Use o comme cial bio-
inoculan s o inc ease ag icul u al p oduc ion h ough imp o ed phospho us
acquisi ion. Appl. Soil Ecol. 86, 41–54. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.
apsoil.2014.09.012.
Rakiami, A., Bech aoui, N., Tahi i, A.I., Anli, M., Meddich, A., Ou dou, K., 2019. Use o
Rhizobac e ia and Myco hizae Conso ium in he open ield as a s a egy o
imp o ing c op nu i ion, p oduc i i y and soil e ili y. F on . Mic obiol. 10.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ micb.2019.01106.
Ramaeke s, L., Remans, R., Rao, I.M., Blai , M.W., Vande leyden, J., 2010. S a egies
o imp o ing phospho us acquisi ion e iciency o c op plan s. Field C op. Res.
117 (2–3), 169–176. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j. c .2010.03.001.
Reijnde s, L., 2014. Phospho us esou ces, hei deple ion and conse a ion, a
e iew. Resou . Conse . Recycl. 93, 32–49. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.
escon ec.2014.09.006.
Richa dson, A.E., Hocking, P.J., Simpson, R.J., Geo ge, T.S., 2009. Plan mechanisms o
op imise access o soil phospho us. C op Pas u e Sci. 60 (2), 124–143. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1071/cp07125.
Richa dson, A.E., Lynch, J.P., Ryan, P.R., Delhaize, E., Smi h, F.A., Smi h, S.E., Ha ey,
P.R., Ryan, M.H., Veneklaas, E.J., Lambe s, H., Obe son, A., Cul eno , R.A.,
Simpson, R.J., 2011. Plan and mic obial s a egies o imp o e he phospho us
e iciency o ag icul u e. Plan Soil 349 (1–2), 121–156. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/
s11104-011-0950-4.
Richa dson, A.E., Simpson, R.J., 2011. Soil mic oo ganisms media ing phospho us
a ailabili y. Plan Physiol. 156 (3), 989–996. h ps://doi.o g/10.1104/
pp.111.175448.
Rod iguez, A., Sande s, I.R., 2015. The ole o communi y and popula ion ecology in
applying myco hizal ungi o imp o ed ood secu i y. ISME J. 9 (5), 1053–
1061. h ps://doi.o g/10.1038/ismej.2014.207.
Rose, T.J., Liu, L., Wissuwa, M., 2013. Imp o ing phospho us e iciency in ce eal
c ops: is b eeding o educed g ain phospho us concen a ion pa o he
solu ion? F on . Plan Sci. 4. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ pls.2013.00444.
Rose, T.J., Rose, M.T., Pa iasca-Tanaka, J., Heue , S., Wissuwa, M., 2011. The
us a ion wi h u iliza ion: why ha e imp o emen s in in e nal phospho us
u iliza ion e iciency in c ops emained so elusi e?. F on . Plan Sci. 2. h ps://
doi.o g/10.3389/ pls.2011.00073.
Rose, T.J., Wissuwa, M., 2012. Re hinking in e nal phospho us u iliza ion e iciency:
a new app oach is needed o imp o e PUE in g ain c ops. Ad . Ag on. 116, 185–
217. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/b978-0-12-394277-7.00005-1.
Sha pley, A., Foy, B., Wi he s, P., 2000. P ac ical and inno a i e measu es o he
con ol o ag icul u al phospho us losses o wa e : an o e iew. J. En i on.
Qual. 29 (1), 1–9. h ps://doi.o g/10.2134/jeq2000.00472425002900010001x.
Shephe d, J.G., Kleemann, R., Bah i-Es ahani, J., Hudek, L., Su iyagoda, L.,
Vandamme, E., an Dijk, K.C., 2016. The u u e o phospho us in ou hands.
Nu . Cycl. Ag oecosys . 104 (3), 281–287. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10705-015-
9742-1.
Smi h, S.E., Read, D., 2008. Myco hizal Symbiosis. Academic P ess, Else ie L d,
USA.
an de Wiel, C.C.M., an de Linden, C.G., Schol en, O.E., 2016. Imp o ing
phospho us use e iciency in ag icul u e: oppo uni ies o b eeding.
Euphy ica 207 (1), 1–22. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10681-015-1572-3.
Vandamme, E., Rose, T., Sai o, K., Jeong, K., Wissuwa, M., 2016. In eg a ion o P
acquisi ion e iciency, P u iliza ion e iciency and low g ain P concen a ions
in o P-e icien ice geno ypes o speci ic a ge en i onmen s. Nu . Cycl.
Ag oecosys . 104 (3), 413–427. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10705-015-9716-3.
Veneklaas, E.J., Lambe s, H., B agg, J., Finnegan, P.M., Lo elock, C.E., Plax on, W.C.,
P ice, C.A., Scheible, W.-R., Shane, M.W., Whi e, P.J., Ra en, J.A., 2012.
Oppo uni ies o imp o ing phospho us-use e iciency in c op plan s. New
Phy ol. 195 (2), 306–320. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04190.x.
Wahid, F., Sha i , M., S einkellne , S., Khan, M.A., Ma wa , K.B., Khan, S.A., 2016.
Inocula ion o a buscula myco hizal ungi and phospha e solubilizing bac e ia
in he p esence o ock phospha e imp o es phospho us up ake and g ow h o
maize. Pak. J. Bo . 48 (2), 739–747.
Wang, X.R., Shen, J.B., Liao, H., 2010. Acquisi ion o u iliza ion, which is mo e c i ical
o enhancing phospho us e iciency in mode n c ops?. Plan Sci. 179 (4), 302–
306. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.plan sci.2010.06.007.
Wa on, D.I., Blanche , F.G., O’Ha a, R.B., O askainen, O., Taskinen, S., Walke , S.C.,
Hui, F.K.C., 2015. So many a iables: join modeling in communi y ecology.
T ends Ecol. E ol. 30 (12), 766–779. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j. ee.2015.09.007.
Wel in, M., Zasada, I., Pio , A., Debolini, M., Geniaux, G., Pe ez, O.M., Sche e , L.,
Ma co, L.T., Schulp, C.J.E., 2018. Concep ualising ields o ac ion o sus ainable
in ensi ica ion – a sys ema ic li e a u e e iew and applica ion o egional case
s udies. Ag . Ecosys . En i on. 257, 68–80. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.
agee.2018.01.023.
Yamaji, N., Takemo o, Y., Miyaji, T., Mi ani-Ueno, N., Yoshida, K.T., Ma, J.F., 2017.
Reducing phospho us accumula ion in ice g ains wi h an impai ed anspo e
in he node. Na u e 541 (7635), 92. h ps://doi.o g/10.1038/na u e20610.
Zhang, L., Fan, J.Q., Ding, X.D., He, X.H., Zhang, F.S., Feng, G., 2014. Hyphosphe e
in e ac ions be ween an a buscula myco hizal ungus and a phospha e
solubilizing bac e ium p omo e phy a e mine aliza ion in soil. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 74, 177–183. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.03.004.
Zhang, L., Feng, G., Decle ck, S., 2018. Signal beyond nu ien , uc ose, exuded by an
a buscula myco hizal ungus igge s phy a e mine aliza ion by a phospha e
solubilizing bac e ium. ISME J. 12 (10), 2339–2351. h ps://doi.o g/10.1038/
s41396-018-0171-4.
Zhang, L., Xu, M.G., Liu, Y., Zhang, F.S., Hodge, A., Feng, G., 2016. Ca bon and
phospho us exchange may enable coope a ion be ween an a buscula
myco hizal ungus and a phospha e-solubilizing bac e ium. New Phy ol. 210
(3), 1022–1032. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/nph.13838.
Inês Pacheco, R. Fe ei a, Pa ícia Co eia e al. Saudi Jou nal o Biological Sciences 28 (2021) 232–237
237