Next Article in Journal
When Uncontrolled Diabetes Mellitus and Severe COVID-19 Converge: The Perfect Storm for Mucormycosis
Next Article in Special Issue
Epichloë gansuensis Increases the Tolerance of Achnatherum inebrians to Low-P Stress by Modulating Amino Acids Metabolism and Phosphorus Utilization Efficiency
Previous Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Identification and Analysis of Nilaparvata lugens microRNAs during Challenge with the Entomopathogenic Fungus Metarhizium anisopliae
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Role of Fungi in the Cocoa Production Chain and the Challenge of Climate Change
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Improved Tolerance of Mycorrhizal Torreya grandis Seedlings to Sulfuric Acid Rain Related to Phosphorus and Zinc Contents in Shoots

1
State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Silviculture, Zhejiang A & F University, Hangzhou 311300, China
2
Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
3
College of Forestry, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
4
Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Rural Ecosystem Health in Dongting Lake Area, Ecology Department, College of Resources and Environment, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410128, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2021, 7(4), 296; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7040296
Submission received: 15 March 2021 / Revised: 9 April 2021 / Accepted: 12 April 2021 / Published: 14 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Impact of Climate Change on Plant–Fungal Interactions)

Abstract

:
Acid rain (AR) is an increasingly serious environmental problem that frequently occurs in Southern China with sulfuric acid rain (SAR) as the main type. SAR can negatively affect the growth and physiological properties of trees, but mycorrhizal associations may mitigate such detrimental effects. However, the mechanisms by which arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi control SAR-induced impacts on Torreya grandis plants remain unclear. A pot experiment was conducted on T. grandis seedlings, an economically important tree species in Southern China, in which inoculated and non-inoculated T. grandis seedlings were subjected to three simulated SAR regimes (pH of 5.6, 4.0, and 2.5, respectively) to examine the effects on the growth, osmotic regulation, and nutrient absorption of these seedlings. The results show that, although SAR had no effect on the accumulation of biomass, it significantly decreased the concentrations of proline and soluble protein, shoot Zn2+, P, K+, and Ca2+ concentrations, and the Fe2+ and Mn2+ concentrations of shoots and roots. Mycorrhizal inoculation, especially with Rhizophagus irregularis, significantly increased total biomass, proline concentration, and the Zn2+, P, and K+ concentrations in the shoots of T. grandis under lower pH conditions. Moreover, our findings suggest that the combination of root colonization, acid tolerance, and the concentrations of shoot-P, shoot-Zn2+, and root-Fe2+ of T. grandis jointly conferred mycorrhizal benefits on the plants under SAR conditions. Given the enhancement of the nutritional quality of T. grandis owing to mycorrhizal associations, inoculation with R. irregularis may be preferable for the culturing and management of these plants under acidic conditions.

1. Introduction

Acid rain (AR) is mainly derived from the drastic emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) and is usually known as a type of rainwater with a pH < 5.6. Due to this low pH, AR poses serious environmental hazards worldwide [1]. In the past 20 years, the centers of AR have transferred from Europe and North America to East Asia, especially India and China; presently, approximately one-fifth of Chinese cities suffer from AR [2]. However, the area over which AR falls in China is continuously increasing with the acceleration of urbanization and industrialization [3,4]. Sulfuric acid rain (SAR), the main type of AR, is particularly prevalent in Southern China, where the mean pH of rainfall in recent years has often been less than 4.6 and has even fallen to 3.6 in some extreme cases [5,6,7,8].
Previous studies have shown that SAR can induce soil and water acidification, forest decline, and damage to buildings, resulting in heavy economic losses to local governments [9,10]. Furthermore, SAR has complex ecological consequences in plants, such as stunting their height, degrading root system growth, interrupting the accumulation of low-molecular-weight solutes, and obstructing the transportation of nutrients, which can adversely influence biomass accumulation, decrease plant resistance to unfavorable conditions, and induce mortality [11,12,13]. Therefore, physical, chemical, and/or biological approaches applied to remediate the detrimental effects of SAR or improve resistance to SAR have received increased attention [12,14,15,16,17].
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), an important component of soil biota, occur naturally in acidic soils [18,19,20,21]. Through symbiotic association, fungal partners obtain shelter and fixed carbon from the host plants and in return provide multiple benefits to these plants, such as improved uptake of mineral nutrients, especially phosphorus and other relatively immobile micronutrients such as zinc, magnesium, copper, and calcium, reduced oxidative stress, and maintained water balance, which can positively impact plant growth and improve resistance to abiotic stresses [22,23,24,25]. Although AMF may be adversely affected by SAR [20,26,27], some studies have reported enhanced growth and performance of mycorrhizal plants under SAR conditions [28,29,30]. For example, mycorrhizal inoculation positively affects the growth and nutrient uptake of Sorghum bicolor [30], Calamagrostis villosa [31], Koelreuteria paniculata [32], and Thuja occidentalis [28], whereas it has little to no effect on the growth of Deschampsia flexuosa [31] under simulated SAR. Furthermore, the beneficial effects of Acaulospora tuberculata were higher than those of Glomus fistulosum and G. mosseae [31] under acidic conditions. These responses indicate that the efficacies of AMF on plants under acidic conditions are controversial and appear to depend on the fungal and host plant species. To date, most related studies have been conducted in crops or herbaceous plants, and the mechanisms underlying the protective effects of AMF on tree species under SAR remain poorly understood.
Chinese torreya (Torreya grandis Fort. ex Lindl. cv. Merrillii) is an economically important tree species that has been used in food and traditional medicine for more than 1000 years in Southeastern China [33,34]. Zhejiang Province, the main planting region of T. grandis, suffers from the most frequent SAR, with pH values varying from 5.6 to 3.8 [7]. T. grandis has been reported to form mycorrhizal associations with several AMF taxa [35]. However, this tree species is moderately sensitive to SAR, and the preferred pH value is approximately 4.5 [36]. In this study, we hypothesized that AMF colonization could mediate SAR-induced effects on T. grandis with enhanced nutrient uptake. To test this, a greenhouse experiment was conducted to explore the effects of AMF on the growth, osmotic adjustment, and nutrient absorption of T. grandis seedlings under simulated SAR regimes. The results of this study should improve our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the alleviation of SAR-induced impacts on plants via mycorrhizal inoculation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Materials and AMF Preparation

The seeds of T. grandis were obtained from the Hualong Nursery Corporation (Hangzhou, China). On 1 March 2017, the seeds were surface-sterilized with a 5% sodium hypochlorite solution (Yonghua Chemical Co., Ltd., Changshu, China) for 15 min and then rinsed with deionized water. The seeds were then sown in trays containing 1 kg of autoclaved substrate with a mixture of sand and peat (1:1, v/v) in a growth chamber set to 20 °C and 15 °C during the day and night, with 16- and 8-h photoperiods, respectively. After emergence, 90 seedlings of identical sizes were selected for use in the following treatments.
Two dominant AMF species in the field, Rhizophagus irregularis (N.C. Schenck and G.S. Sm.) C. Walker and A. Schüßler (BGC BJ09) and Funneliformis mosseae (T.H. Nicolson and Gerd.) C. Walker and A. Schüßler (BGC HUN03B), were selected as the inocula, which were supplied by the Bank of Glomeromycota in China at the Institute of Plant Nutrients and Resources, Beijing Municipal Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Science. R. irregularis was initially isolated from the rhizosphere of tomatoes in Langfang (Hebei Province, China) and F. mosseae was isolated from the rhizosphere of Roegneria kamoji Ohwi in Chenzhou (Hunan Province, China). These two mycorrhizal inocula were multiplied for five months using Sorghum bicolor L. by the trap culture method in a plastic pot with fine sand as the substrate [37]. In this experiment, the R. irregularis inoculum contained ~200 spores g−1 and abundant mycelia, whereas the F. mosseae inoculum contained ~160 spores g−1, as well as colonized roots and mycelium fragments. Both fungal inocula were in accordance with the highest possible number test [38].

2.2. Experimental Design

On 14 April 2017, the seedlings were moved into a greenhouse situated at the Pingshan Research Station of Zhejiang A & F University in Hangzhou city, Zhejiang Province, China (30°15′ N, 119°43′ E). After six days of adaptation to the greenhouse environment, 72 healthy and similar-sized seedlings were transplanted into plastic pots (16.5 cm × 18 cm × 12 cm) containing 2 kg of soil substrate. Single seedlings were planted in each pot. The soil substrate used in this experiment consisted of a mixture of field soil and peat in the ratio 3:1 (v/v) with γ-irradiation (25 kGy) [39]. The substrate had the following properties: pH 5.6, organic matter 22.8 mg·g−1, total N 0.85 mg·g−1, and available P 0.42 mg·g−1.
The experiment was performed using 12 factorial combinations of SAR and AMF regimes. The three intensities of SAR regimes employed were pH 5.6, 4.0, and 2.5. The AMF regimes comprised four levels: autoclaved non-mycorrhizal inoculum, inoculated with R. irregularis, inoculated with F. mosseae, and inoculated with the combination of R. irregularis and F. mosseae. Six replicate pots were set for each treatment combination, for a total of 72 pots. The amount of inoculum for single-species inoculation was 40 g per pot, and the amount of each AMF species for non-mycorrhizal and two-species inoculation was 20 g per pot. The inocula were placed into 15-cm pots just below the roots of the seedlings after transplanting [40]. Meanwhile, the pots with non-mycorrhizal inoculation were supplied with a 5 mL aqueous filtrate of the two fungal species (non-sterilized AMF mixture-distilled water ratio = 1:3) filtered twice through Whatman No. 1 paper to correct for possible differences in soil microbial populations [41].
On 18 June 2017, simulated SAR treatments were explored. In this study, we selected pH values of 5.6, 4.0, and 2.5 as the treatment regimes, which were consistent with the annual changes in pH values for SAR in most areas of Southern China [7]. We first prepared a stock acid solution by mixing 0.5 mol L−1 of H2SO4 and 0.5 mol L−1 of HNO3 (Shanghai Lingfeng Chemical Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China) at a 2:1 ratio, which was equivalent to the ionic ratio of natural precipitation at the local site [7]. Second, the corresponding SAR regimes were generated by adding distilled water (average pH: ~6.8) to the stock acid solution. A total of 13.49 L of simulated SAR was applied to each pot with 253 mL applied every two days, which is approximately equivalent to the annual precipitation in Hangzhou city, Zhejiang Province, China [42]. Lastly, 5 mL of adjusted Hoagland solution was received weekly by each pot [43]. These experiments were conducted from 20 April to 25 November 2017. At the end of the experiment, the shoots and roots of seedlings were harvested separately.

2.3. Measurement of Plant Biomass and AMF Colonization

All plants were divided into roots, stems, and leaves after the experiment ended, and the biomass of each part was weighed after drying at 60 °C for 48 h. Mycorrhizal colonization was determined by first randomly selecting the root segments of three plants from each treatment for digestion in 10% KOH (Xilong Chemical Co. Ltd., Guangzhou, China) at 90 °C for 90 min, followed by rinsing with distilled water and then acidification in 2% HCl (Shanghai Lingfeng Chemical Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China) at ambient temperature for 5 min. The root segments were then stained with 0.05% trypan blue (Sangon Biotech Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China) at 90 °C for 1 h in a water bath as described by Phillips and Hayman [44]. Finally, the stained root segments were examined under a microscope according to the gridline intercept method [45].

2.4. Measurement of Proline and Soluble Protein Contents

After harvesting, the proline and soluble protein contents of the leaves of four plants randomly selected from each treatment were immediately determined via spectrophotometry using commercial kits (Nanjing Jiancheng Institute of Bioengineering, Nanjing, China) [46].

2.5. Measurement of Plant Nutrient Contents

The dried shoot and root samples of three randomly selected plants from each treatment were ground separately, and their macro- and micronutrient contents were analyzed. The N and P contents were determined using the Kjeldahl and ammonium molybdate blue methods, respectively [47], whereas the K+, Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Fe2+, Zn2+, and Mn2+ contents were measured following the methods described by Colla et al. [48] using an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AA7000; Shimadzu, Japan).

2.6. Data Analysis

To quantify the influence of mycorrhizal colonization, the mycorrhizal growth response (MGR) was calculated as described by Johnson et al. [49]:
MGR = l o g e ( D W AMF A v g ( D W n o n AMF ) )
where DWAMF is the total dry weight of mycorrhizal plants and A v g ( DW n o n AMF ) is the mean dry weight of non-colonized plants subjected to identical pH conditions (n = 6).
The acid−tolerance index (ATI) of each plant was computed following He et al. [29]:
ATI = 1 B i , m a x B i B i , m a x
where Bi,max is the largest total biomass of the six plants at pH 5.6, with identical AMF inoculation, and Bi is the total biomass of each of the six plants at pH levels of 2.5 and 4.0 (both are the stressful pH values in our study). Target species for which 0 < ATI < 0.3, 0.3 < ATI < 0.6, and ATI > 0.6, were considered as acid-sensitive, moderately acid-sensitive, and acid-tolerant, respectively.
A two−way analysis of variance was used to study the effects of AMF and SAR on plant growth, physiochemical parameters, MGR, ATI, and nutrient contents. Before analysis, all data were subjected to Levene’s test for the equality of variance and the Shapiro–Wilk test for normality. When the interactive effects of SAR and AMF were significant (p < 0.05), a least significant difference test was used to compare the significance of plant parameters among different treatments. Pearson’s correlation analysis was also used to analyze the relationship between paired traits of T. grandis, and linear regression was used to determine the relationship between MGR and related parameters. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS v. 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and R v. 4.0.2 [50], and graphs were generated using Origin 2018 (Origin Lab Co., Northampton, MA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Mycorrhizal Colonization

As shown in Figure 1, there was nearly no mycorrhizal colonization (MC) in the roots of T. grandis seedlings with non-mycorrhizal inoculation (MC < 3.35%). Meanwhile, three treatments of AMF species successfully colonized the roots of T. grandis at all pH levels, with root colonization ranging from 19.9 to 60.83%. There were no significant differences in MC between different AMF across all pH levels and the highest root colonization was recorded for plants inoculated with a combination of R. irregularis and F. mosseae at higher pH levels (5.6 and 4.0), and with R. irregularis at pH 2.5. Significant interactive effects of SAR and AMF on MC were observed (Table S1).

3.2. Plant Growth and Physiochemical Parameters

In this study, SAR did not significantly affect the total dry weight (TDW) of T. grandis seedlings and, at pH 4.0, the TDWs of mycorrhizal plants were higher than those of non-mycorrhizal plants, especially in bi-inoculated plants. At pH 2.5, the highest TDW was found in plants inoculated with R. irregularis (Figure 2A). Additionally, significant interactive effects were detected between SAR and AMF on TDW (Table S1). Moreover, neither SAR nor AMF had significant impacts on the distribution of biomass (Figure 2B; Table S1). These responses showed that mycorrhizal inoculation mainly affected the biomass accumulation, not the biomass allocation, of T. grandis under acidic conditions.
Different changes in proline concentrations were observed between mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal plants in response to SAR; at pH 4.0 and 2.5, the proline concentrations were higher in mycorrhizal plants, among which plants inoculated with R. irregularis and the combination of R. irregularis and F. mosseae possessed the highest proline content records at pH 4.0 and pH 2.5, respectively (Figure 3A). SAR alone had no effect on the soluble protein (SP) concentrations of T. grandis seedlings (Table S1). At pH 4.0, the highest SP concentration was recorded in bi-inoculated plants, whereas at pH 2.5, the highest concentration was recorded in plants inoculated with F. mosseae alone, with concentrations 62.8% higher than those of non-mycorrhizal plants (Figure 3B). A significant interaction between SAR and AMF was found in the SP concentrations of the plants (Table S1).

3.3. Concentrations of Shoot and Root Mineral Nutrients

SAR alone significantly decreased the concentrations of micronutrients (Zn2+, Fe2+, and Mn2+) in T. grandis seedlings. At lower pH levels (4.0 and 2.5), the shoot Zn2+ concentrations of mycorrhizal plants were higher than those of non-mycorrhizal plants, especially in plants inoculated with R. irregularis; however, the root Zn2+ concentrations of these plants were lower than those of non-mycorrhizal plants (Figure 4A). At all pH levels, AMF inoculation significantly decreased the shoot and root Fe2+ concentrations compared with their respective controls (Figure 4B). Similarly, at a pH of 5.6, the shoot and root Mn2+ concentrations in mycorrhizal plants were lower than those of non-mycorrhizal plants, whereas at lower pH levels, there were no differences between them with either one of the AMF inocula (Figure 4C). SAR, AMF inoculation, and their interactions significantly impacted the Zn2+, Fe2+, and Mn2+ concentrations in the shoots and roots of T. grandis seedlings (Table S1).
The concentrations of N, P, K+, Na+, Ca2+, and Mg2+ in the shoots and roots of T. grandis seedlings were significantly affected by SAR, AMF, and their interactions (Table S2). SAR alone did not have a significant effect on N concentrations in the shoots and roots of non-mycorrhizal or mycorrhizal plants and, with the exception of the bi-inoculated plants, the N concentrations in the shoots and roots of mycorrhizal plants were lower than those of non-mycorrhizal plants (Figure 5A). SAR significantly decreased P concentrations in the shoots of non-mycorrhizal plants, but not in mycorrhizal plants. At the lowest pH (=2.5), AMF significantly increased the P concentrations in shoots, especially with inoculation by R. irregularis (Figure 5B). The P concentrations in shoots were dominantly affected by SAR and AMF, whereas those in the roots were less affected. SAR alone negatively affected the K+ concentrations in the shoots of non-mycorrhizal plants, but not in the roots of any plants (Figure 5C). At a pH of 5.6, the K+ concentrations in the shoots of mycorrhizal plants were lower than those of non-mycorrhizal plants at pH 4.0 but higher than those of their counterparts; at all pH values, the K+ concentrations in the roots of mycorrhizal plants were lower than those of non-mycorrhizal plants (Figure 5C).
The effects of SAR and AMF on Na+ and Mg2+ concentrations in the shoots and roots varied (Figure 5D,E). The Mg2+ and Ca2+ concentrations in the shoots were consistently higher than those in the roots (Figure 5E,F). SAR significantly increased the Ca2+ concentrations in the shoots of non-mycorrhizal plants but not in mycorrhizal plants, whereas those in the roots initially increased and then frequently declined (Figure 5F). At the lowest pH level (2.5), the Ca2+ concentrations in the shoots and roots of mycorrhizal plants were lower than those of non-mycorrhizal plants.

3.4. Mycorrhizal Benefits and the Relationships between Plant Traits

At lower pH values (4.0 and 2.5), the ATI values suggested that non-mycorrhizal plants, and those inoculated with R. irregularis alone or with the combination of R. irregularis and F. mosseae, were tolerant to SAR (ATI > 0.6), whereas plants inoculated only with F. mosseae were moderately acid-sensitive (0.3 < ATI < 0.6). At a pH of 2.5, the highest ATI value was detected in plants inoculated with R. irregularis, which was 20.2, 157.6, and 67.3% higher than that in non-mycorrhizal plants, plants inoculated with F. mosseae alone, and plants inoculated with the combination of the two AMF species, respectively (Figure 6A). With decreases in pH, the MGR of plants inoculated with R. irregularis increased, whereas those inoculated with F. mosseae or with both AMF species decreased significantly, suggesting that R. irregularis more positively impacted plant growth, especially at pH 2.5 (Figure 6A). Furthermore, MGR was positively and linearly correlated with MC, ATI, shoot-P, shoot-Zn2+, and root-Fe2+ concentrations, which may be the mechanism underlying mycorrhizal efficacy (Figure S2, Figure 7).

4. Discussion

In this study, we aimed to explore the effects of AMF on the growth, physicochemical parameters, and nutrient uptake of T. grandis under simulated sulfuric acid rain. We found that SAR alone negatively affected certain physicochemical parameters and nutrient acquisition, and AMF colonization greatly increased total dry biomass, proline concentration, and P, Zn2+, and K+ concentrations in the shoots of T. grandis, especially with inoculation by R. irregularis under the lower pH levels when compared to the non-mycorrhizal controls. These results support our hypothesis that AMF can, to some degree, mediate the unfavorable effects of SAR on T. grandis seedlings. Furthermore, our results show that mycorrhizal efficiency was mainly enhanced at lower pH levels, implying the specific control of SAR.
Biomass can be a useful indicator of plant growth and performance under SAR stress [16]. In this study, SAR alone had no effect on the total biomass of T. grandis, which is consistent with a study on maize grown under pH values ranging from 2.0 to 7.0 [51]. The response of biomass to SAR suggested that SAR did not overstress the growth of T. grandis, which could be ascribed to the relatively high acid-tolerance of most T. grandis plants, with the exception of those inoculated with F. mosseae (Figure 6A). However, AMF inoculation significantly increased the biomass accumulation of T. grandis under lower pH conditions (i.e., 4.0 and 2.5), which is consistent with the observations of C. villosa under acidic conditions [31]. Previous studies have also shown similar mycorrhizal efficiencies for 24 tropical forage legumes grown in a pH of 4.36 [52], cassava grown in soil with pH 3.9, and sorghum in pH 4.5 [53]. However, enhancements to biomass were not found in the mycorrhizal plants of D. flexuosa grown under SAR conditions [31]. Thus, mycorrhizal benefits depend on both the host plant species and pH levels. Moreover, AMF inoculation in this study mainly affected the accumulation of biomass rather than its allocation, which agrees with the response of Chrysanthemum morifolium to mycorrhizal inoculation under salinity stress [37].
AMF inoculation not only enhanced the growth of T. grandis, but also the acquisition of elements in this study. In our study, mycorrhizal efficiency was found to be directly correlated to P and Zn2+ concentrations in shoots and Fe2+ concentration in roots. P is an important macronutrient in plant cells, including the sugar-phosphates that facilitate respiration and photosynthesis, the phospholipids that make up plant membranes, and the nucleotides used in metabolism and in DNA and RNA. Meanwhile, a deficiency in P stunts plant growth, resulting in dark green coloration, necrotic spots on the leaves, slender stems, and delayed maturation [54]. P is the most commonly reported mineral nutrient to be enhanced with mycorrhizal inoculation under stressful conditions [23,26,55], which was corroborated in our study but was not noted in previous studies on mycorrhizal sorghum grown in acid soils [30]. Zinc is an essential micronutrient for chlorophyll biosynthesis in some plants, and Zn deficiencies are characterized by reductions in intermodal growth and by small and distorted leaves with white necrotic spots. Additionally, Zn in food can increase human appetites and promote neurological development, thereby benefiting human health [54]. In the present study, the mycorrhizal efficiency of Zn2+ in plant shoots is in agreement with maize grown on acid soils [26] and sorghum grown in soil at pH 4.1 [53]. Fe2+ is another nutritional element and is normally less available at higher pH values [53], whereas AMF inoculation did not offer benefits, which was in line with the results on Stylosanthes guianensis [56] but was contrary to results on sorghum grown in acidic soils [30]. Notably, in this study, R. irregularis was more efficient at increasing P and Zn2+ acquisition in T. grandis shoots than other mycorrhizal fungi, which could therefore enhance the yield and nutritional quality of T. grandis nuts in SAR-impacted areas. Numerous studies have confirmed the positive effects of AMF on nutrient uptake and plant quality, which can be considered as an assurance against their deterioration caused by unfavorable factors [23,57,58].
Improved P and Zn2+ uptake by AMF under acidic conditions in this study might have been due to increased absorption by the extensive hyphal network for exploring larger soil volumes and increasing root growth, decreasing the distance that the elements had to diffuse to reach plant roots, or by the release of organic acids and phosphatase to chemically modify organic compounds by hyphae [53,59]. Moreover, the results of this study reveal that the percentage of root colonization in mycorrhizal plants is not affected by SAR with pH values ranging from 2.5 to 5.6. This is a finding that is consistent with the root colonization of spring oats (Avena sativa L.) and potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) at soil pH values between 4.5 and 7.5. Nevertheless, the highest colonization of any of the three fungal types in this experiment occurred at pH 4.0. Reportedly, the optimal pH values for the maximal root colonization of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) with G. manihotis, Acaulospora mellea, and Entrophospora colombiana are 4.4, 4.5, and 4.8, respectively [26]. Evidently, AMF differ in their pH preferences; however, in this study, mycorrhizal efficiency was linearly correlated with root colonization, which is contrary to the finding that the benefits of AMF on the growth of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) were independent of root colonization under salinity stress [60]. Furthermore, AMF performed differently in terms of mediating the effects of SAR, and the plants benefited more from inoculation with R. irregularis under lower pH regimes. These functional differences among AMF species may reflect stress-specific adaptive mechanisms [61,62].
It remains unclear how exactly AMF promote plant performance under unfavorable conditions. Previous studies have suggested that the improvement in nutrient uptake (especially P), increased osmotic protective agents, such as proline, soluble sugars, or amino acids, and/or the enhancement of physiological processes, such as photosynthesis or water absorption capacity, are responsible for the mycorrhizal benefits [23,63,64]. In our study, a combination of root colonization, acid tolerance, and the concentrations of shoot-P, shoot-Zn2+, and root-Fe2+ in T. grandis likely worked together to confer mycorrhizal benefits under SAR.

5. Conclusions

In this study, AMF inoculation, especially with R. irregularis, significantly increased total biomass, proline content, and the Zn2+, P, and K+ concentrations in the shoots of T. grandis under high SAR intensities, providing evidence that AMF can mediate SAR-induced negative effects on T. grandis plants to a certain extent. Furthermore, our study revealed that the combination of root colonization, acid tolerance, and the concentrations of shoot-P, shoot-Zn2+, and root-Fe2+ in T. grandis may be responsible for mycorrhizal efficiency under SAR. In fact, with improvements in living standards, consumer interest in the quality of edible products, such as the nuts of T. grandis, has increased. Considering the specific mycorrhizal efficacy of AMF on shoot P and Zn2+ contents in response to SAR observed here, inoculation with R. irregularis may be a preferable means of enhancing the nutritional quality of T. grandis grown in regions suffering from frequent SAR. However, our experiment was conducted under greenhouse conditions, and mycorrhizal efficacy can be affected by several environmental factors. Therefore, field trials are now required to verify our conclusions.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/jof7040296/s1, Table S1: Effects of sulfuric acid rain (SAR), arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), and their interactions on growth, physiological, and biochemical indexes, and micronutrient concentrations of Torreya grandis seedlings; Table S2: Effects of sulfuric acid rain (SAR), arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), and their interactions on macronutrient concentrations of Torreya grandis seedlings; Figure S1: Colonization of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the roots of Torreya grandis plants under sulfuric acid rain; Figure S2: Correlation coefficients of the variables of Torreya grandis across the twelve treatment combinations. Blue and red colors indicate positive and negative significant correlations, respectively. In the upper triangle, the darker the circle color is, the stronger the correlation is. Significance levels: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

Author Contributions

Proposed and organized the overall experiment, and reviewed the final manuscript, Y.W.; gave assistance with interpretation of the results and reviewed the final manuscript, C.S., N.Z., A.W. and J.X.; wrote the main manuscript text, L.X.; contributed to laboratory work and data analyses Y.Q., X.H., J.P. and X.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Special Foundation for the National Science and Technology Basic Research Program of China (2019FY102000), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 32071644 and 31400366), and the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDB 31030000).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article and Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the constructive comments from two anonymous reviewers and the help from Jiasheng Wu for providing the experimental seedlings. We would like to thank English language editing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ARacid rain
SARsulfuric acid rain
AMFarbuscular mycorrhizal fungi
MGRmycorrhizal growth response
ATIacid-tolerance index
MCmycorrhizal colonization
TDWtotal dry weight
SPsoluble protein

References

  1. Wei, H.; Ma, R.; Zhang, J.E.; Zhou, L.Y.; Liu, Z.Q.; Fan, Z.Y.; Yang, J.Y.; Shan, X.R.; Xiang, H.M. Quality dependence of litter decomposition and its carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus release under simulated acid rain treatments. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 19858–19868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Andrade, G.C.; Castro, L.N.; Silva, L.C.D. Micromorphological alterations induced by simulated acid rain on the leaf surface of Joannesia princeps Vell. (Euphorbiaceae). Ecol. Indic. 2020, 116, 106526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cui, L.L.; Liang, J.H.; Fu, H.B.; Zhang, L.W. The contributions of socioeconomic and natural factors to the acid deposition over China. Chemosphere 2020, 253, 126491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wei, H.; Ma, R.; Zhang, J.E.; Saleem, M.; Liu, Z.Q.; Shan, X.R.; Yang, J.Y.; Xiang, H.M. Crop-litter type determines the structure and function of litter-decomposing microbial communities under acid rain conditions. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 713, 136600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Huang, X.F.; Li, X.; He, L.Y.; Feng, N.; Hu, M.; Niu, Y.W.; Zeng, L.W. 5-Year study of rainwater chemistry in a coastal mega-city in South China. Atmos. Res. 2010, 97, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Larssen, T.; Seip, H.M.; Semb, A.; Mulder, J.; Muniz, I.P.; Vogt, R.D.; Lydersen, E.; Angell, V.; Dagang, T.; Eilertsen, O. Acid deposition and its effects in China: An overview. Environ. Sci. Policy 1999, 2, 9–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Niu, Y.W.; Pu, J.J.; Deng, F.P.; Qi, B. Analysis on spatial and temporal evolution of acid rain and its causes from 1992 to 2012 in Zhejiang. Environ. Monit. China 2017, 33, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, Y.L.; Lee, X.Q.; Cao, F. Chemical characteristics and sources of organic acids in precipitation at a semi-urban site in Southwest China. Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 413–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pham, H.T.T.; Nguyen, A.T.; Nguyen, T.T.H.; Hens, L. Stakeholder Delphi-perception analysis on impacts and responses of acid rain on agricultural ecosystems in the Vietnamese upland. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2019, 22, 4467–4493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wei, H.; Liu, W.; Zhang, J.E.; Qin, Z. Effects of simulated acid rain on soil fauna community composition and their ecological niches. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 220, 460–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bao, G.Z.; Tang, W.Y.; An, Q.R.; Liu, Y.X.; Tian, J.Q.; Zhao, N.; Zhu, S.N. Physiological effects of the combined stresses of freezing-thawing, acid precipitation and deicing salt on alfalfa seedlings. BMC Plant Biol. 2020, 20, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Da Fonseca, S.S.; Da Silva, B.R.S.; Lobato, A.K.D.S. 24-Epibrassinolide Positively Modulate Leaf Structures, Antioxidant System and Photosynthetic Machinery in Rice Under Simulated Acid Rain. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2020, 39, 1559–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, X.; Li, C.; Meng, M.J.; Zhai, L.; Zhang, B.; Jia, Z.H.; Gu, Z.Y.; Liu, Q.Q.; Zhang, Y.L.; Zhang, J.C. Comparative effects of the recovery from sulfuric and nitric acid rain on the soil enzyme activities and metabolic functions of soil microbial communities. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 714, 136788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Debnath, B.; Li, M.; Liu, S.; Pan, T.F.; Ma, C.L.; Qiu, D.L. Melatonin-mediate acid rain stress tolerance mechanism through alteration of transcriptional factors and secondary metabolites gene expression in tomato. Ecotox. Environ. Saf. 2020, 200, 110720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ju, S.M.; Wang, L.P.; Chen, J.Y. Effects of Silicon on the Growth, Photosynthesis and Chloroplast Ultrastructure of Oryza sativa L. Seedlings under Acid Rain Stress. Silicon 2019, 12, 655–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liu, Z.Q.; Yang, J.Y.; Zhang, J.E.; Xiang, H.M.; Wei, H. A bibliometric analysis of research on acid rain. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Maltz, M.R.; Chen, Z.; Cao, J.X.; Arogyaswamy, K.; Shulman, H.; Aronson, E.L. Inoculation with Pisolithus tinctorius may ameliorate acid rain impacts on soil microbial communities associated with Pinus massoniana seedlings. Fungal Ecol. 2019, 40, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Aguilera, P.; Cumming, J.R.; Oehl, F.; Cornejo, P.; Borie, F. Diversity of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Acidic Soils and Their Contribution to Aluminum Phytotoxicity Alleviation. In Aluminum Stress Adaptation in Plants: Signaling and Communication in Plants; Panda, S.K., Baluška, F., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 24, pp. 203–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bunch, W.D.; Cowden, C.C.; Wurzburger, N.; Shefferson, R.P. Geography and soil chemistry drive the distribution of fungal associations in lady’s slipper orchid, Cypripedium acaule. Botany 2013, 91, 850–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, X.D.; Feng, Z.W.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Zhu, H.H.; Yao, Q. Acidic soil inhibits the functionality of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi by reducing arbuscule formation in tomato roots. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 66, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sylvia, D.M.; Williams, S.E. Vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizae and environmental stress. In Mycorrhizae in Sustainable Agriculture; Bethlenfalvay, G.J., Linderman, R.G., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy Special Publications: Madison, WI, USA, 1992; pp. 101–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Genre, A.; Lanfranco, L.; Perotto, S.; Bonfante, P. Unique and common traits in mycorrhizal symbioses. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2020, 18, 649–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pandey, D.; Kehri, H.K.; Zoomi, I.; Akhtar, O.; Singh, A.K. Mycorrhizal fungi: Biodiversity, ecological significance, and industrial applications. In Recent Advancement in White Biotechnology through Fungi: Diversity and Enzymes Perspectives; Yadav, A.N., Mishra, S., Singh, S., Gupta, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 1, pp. 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Van der Heijden, M.G.; Martin, F.M.; Selosse, M.A.; Sanders, I.R. Mycorrhizal ecology and evolution: The past, the present, and the future. New Phytol. 2015, 205, 1406–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lumini, E.; Pan, J.; Magurno, F.; Huang, C.; Bianciotto, V.; Xue, X.; Balestrini, R.; Tedeschi, A. Native Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Characterization from Saline Lands in Arid Oases, Northwest China. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Clark, R.B. Arbuscular mycorrhizal adaptation, spore germination, root colonization, and host plant growth and mineral acquisition at low pH. Plant Soil 1997, 192, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vosátka, M.; Batkhuugyin, E.; Albrechtová, J. Response of three arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to simulated acid rain and aluminium stress. Biol. Plant. 1999, 42, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Anwar, G.; Lilleskov, E.A.; Chimner, R.A. Arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculation has similar benefits to fertilization for Thuja occidentalis L. seedling nutrition and growth on peat soil over a range of pH: Implications for restoration. New For. 2020, 51, 297–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. He, L.; Xu, J.; Hu, L.L.; Ren, M.L.; Tang, J.J.; Chen, X. Nurse effects mediated by acid-tolerance of target species and arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization in an acid soil. Plant Soil 2019, 441, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Medeiros, C.A.B.; Clark, R.B.; Ellis, J.R. Growth and nutrient uptake of sorghum cultivated with vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza isolates at varying pH. Mycorrhiza 1994, 4, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vosátka, M.; Dodd, J.C. The role of different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the growth of Calamagrostis villosa and Deschampsia flexuosa, in experiments with simulated acid rain. Plant Soil 1998, 200, 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chen, L.L.; Lei, N.Y. Effect of soil microbe inoculation on Koelreuteria paniculata seedlings growth under simulated acid rain stress. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2019, 28, 438–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tang, H.; Hu, Y.Y.; Yu, W.W.; Song, L.L.; Wu, J.S. Growth, photosynthetic and physiological responses of Torreya grandis seedlings to varied light environments. Trees 2015, 29, 1011–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, R.; Zhao, Y.X.; Lin, J.H.; Hu, Y.Y.; Hänninen, H.; Wu, J.S. Biochar application alleviates unbalanced nutrient uptake caused by N deposition in Torreya grandis trees and seedlings. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 432, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ye, W.; Li, Y.C.; Yu, W.W.; Ye, X.M.; Qian, Y.T.; Dai, W.S. Microbial biodiversity in rhizospheric soil of Torreya grandis ‘Merrillii’ relative to cultivation history. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 29, 3783–3792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Qin, X.C.; Li, J.H. Study on Favourable Environment and Cultivation Techniques of Torreya grandis cv. Merrillii. Hortic. Seed 2012, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, Y.H.; Wang, M.Q.; Li, Y.; Wu, A.P.; Huang, J.Y. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on growth and nitrogen uptake of Chrysanthemum morifolium under salt stress. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Porter, W.M. The ‘most probable number’ method for enumerating infective propagules of vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in soil. Aust. J. Soil Res. 1979, 17, 515–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. McNamara, N.P.; Black, H.I.J.; Beresford, N.A.; Parekh, N.R. Effects of acute gamma irradiation on chemical, physical and biological properties of soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2003, 24, 117–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kaya, C.; Ashraf, M.; Sonmez, O.; Aydemir, S.; Tuna, A.L.; Cullu, M.A. The influence of arbuscular mycorrhizal colonisation on key growth parameters and fruit yield of pepper plants grown at high salinity. Sci. Hortic. 2009, 121, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Van der Heijden, M.G.; Wiemken, A.; Sanders, I.R. Different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi alter coexistence and resource distribution between co-occurring plant. New Phytol. 2003, 157, 569–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Song, X.Z.; Zhou, G.M.; Gu, H.H.; Qi, L.H. Management practices amplify the effects of N deposition on leaf litter decomposition of the Moso bamboo forest. Plant Soil 2015, 395, 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Veiga, R.S.; Faccio, A.; Genre, A.; Pieterse, C.M.; Bonfante, P.; Van der Heijden, M.G. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi reduce growth and infect roots of the non-host plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Environ. 2013, 36, 1926–1937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Phillips, J.; Hayman, D. Improved procedures for clearing roots and staining parasitic and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi for rapid assessment of infection. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 1970, 55, 158–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Giovannetti, M.; Mosse, B. An evaluation of techniques for measuring vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal infection in roots. New Phytol. 1980, 84, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Guo, S.W.; Ma, J.X.; Xing, Y.Y.; Xu, Y.Q.; Jin, X.; Yan, S.M.; Shi, B.L. Artemisia annua L. aqueous extract as an alternative to antibiotics improving growth performance and antioxidant function in broilers. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 19, 399–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Allen, S.E. Chemical Analysis of Ecological Materials, 2nd ed.; Blackwell Scientific Publications: London, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  48. Colla, G.; Rouphael, Y.; Cardarelli, M.; Tullio, M.; Rivera, C.M.; Rea, E. Alleviation of salt stress by arbuscular mycorrhizal in zucchini plants grown at low and high phosphorus concentration. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2008, 44, 501–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Johnson, N.C.; Wilson, G.W.; Wilson, J.A.; Miller, R.M.; Bowker, M.A. Mycorrhizal phenotypes and the Law of the Minimum. New Phytol. 2015, 205, 1473–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 26 January 2021).
  51. Macaulay, B.M.; Enahoro, G.E. Effects of simulated acid rain on the morphology, phenology and dry biomass of a local variety of maize (Suwan-1) in Southwestern Nigeria. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Saif, S.R. Growth responses of tropical forage plant species to vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae. Plant Soil 1987, 97, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Raju, P.S.; Clark, R.B.; Ellis, J.R.; Maranville, J.W. Effects of Va mycorrhizae on growth and mineral uptake of sorghum grown at varied levels of soil acidity. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1988, 19, 919–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Taiz, L.; Zeiger, E.; Møller, I.M.; Murphy, A. Plant Physiology and Development, 6th ed.; Sinauer Associates, Inc.: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  55. Smith, S.E.; Read, D.J. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis; Academic Press: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lambais, M.R.; Cardoso, E.J.B.N. Response of Stylosanthes guianensis to endomycorrhizal fungi inoculation as affected by lime and phosphorus applications. Plant Soil 1993, 150, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Albornoz, F.E.; Dixon, K.W.; Lambers, H. Revisiting mycorrhizal dogmas: Are mycorrhizas really functioning as they are widely believed to do? Soil Ecol. Lett. 2021, 3, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Baum, C.; El-Tohamy, W.; Gruda, N. Increasing the productivity and product quality of vegetable crops using arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: A review. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 187, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Xue, Y.L.; Li, C.Y.; Wang, C.R.; Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Chang, S.; Miao, Y.; Dang, T.H. Mechanisms of phosphorus uptake from soils by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2019, 33, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Evelin, H.; Giri, B.; Kapoor, R. Contribution of Glomus intraradices inoculation to nutrient acquisition and mitigation of ionic imbalance in NaCl-stressed Trigonella foenum-graecum. Mycorrhiza 2012, 22, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Smith, F.A.; Jakobsen, I.; Smith, S.E. Spatial differences in acquisition of soil phosphate between two arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in symbiosis with Medicago truncatula. New Phytol. 2000, 147, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Van der Heijden, M.G.; Sanders, I.R. Mycorrhizal Ecology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bonfante, P.; Genre, A. Mechanisms underlying beneficial plant-fungus interactions in mycorrhizal symbiosis. Nat. Commun. 2010, 1, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Chandrasekaran, M.; Boughattas, S.; Hu, S.; Oh, S.H.; Sa, T. A meta-analysis of arbuscular mycorrhizal effects on plants grown under salt stress. Mycorrhiza 2014, 24, 611–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) on mycorrhizal colonization of Torreya grandis under acid rain with pH 5.6, 4.0, and 2.5. NM, Ri, Fm, and Ri+Fm represent the four AMF treatments: inoculation with no mycorrhizal fungi, with Rhizophagus irregularis, with Funneliformis mosseae, and with the combination of the two fungi inoculum, respectively. Values are presented as the mean ± SE (n = 3). Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 1. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) on mycorrhizal colonization of Torreya grandis under acid rain with pH 5.6, 4.0, and 2.5. NM, Ri, Fm, and Ri+Fm represent the four AMF treatments: inoculation with no mycorrhizal fungi, with Rhizophagus irregularis, with Funneliformis mosseae, and with the combination of the two fungi inoculum, respectively. Values are presented as the mean ± SE (n = 3). Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Jof 07 00296 g001
Figure 2. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on total dry weight (A) and root:shoot ratio (B) of Torreya grandis under acid rain with pH 5.6, 4.0, and 2.5. NM, Ri, Fm, and Ri+Fm represent the four AMF treatments: inoculation with no mycorrhizal fungi, with Rhizophagus irregularis, with Funneliformis mosseae, and with the combination of the two fungi inoculum, respectively. Values are presented as the mean ± SE (n = 6). Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on total dry weight (A) and root:shoot ratio (B) of Torreya grandis under acid rain with pH 5.6, 4.0, and 2.5. NM, Ri, Fm, and Ri+Fm represent the four AMF treatments: inoculation with no mycorrhizal fungi, with Rhizophagus irregularis, with Funneliformis mosseae, and with the combination of the two fungi inoculum, respectively. Values are presented as the mean ± SE (n = 6). Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Jof 07 00296 g002
Figure 3. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on proline concentration (A) and soluble protein concentration (B) of Torreya grandis under acid rain with pH 5.6, 4.0, and 2.5. NM, Ri, Fm, and Ri+Fm represent the four AMF treatments: inoculation with no mycorrhizal fungi, with Rhizophagus irregularis, with Funneliformis mosseae, and with the combination of the two fungi inoculum, respectively. Values are presented as the mean ± SE (n = 4). Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on proline concentration (A) and soluble protein concentration (B) of Torreya grandis under acid rain with pH 5.6, 4.0, and 2.5. NM, Ri, Fm, and Ri+Fm represent the four AMF treatments: inoculation with no mycorrhizal fungi, with Rhizophagus irregularis, with Funneliformis mosseae, and with the combination of the two fungi inoculum, respectively. Values are presented as the mean ± SE (n = 4). Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Jof 07 00296 g003
Figure 4. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on micronutrients of Zn2+ (A), Fe2+ (B), and Mn2+ (C) in shoot and root of Torreya grandis under acid rain with pH 5.6, 4.0, and 2.5. NM, Ri, Fm, and Ri+Fm represent the four AMF treatments: inoculation with no mycorrhizal fungi, with Rhizophagus irregularis, with Funneliformis mosseae, and with the combination of the two fungi inoculum, respectively. Values are presented as the mean ± SE (n = 3). Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on micronutrients of Zn2+ (A), Fe2+ (B), and Mn2+ (C) in shoot and root of Torreya grandis under acid rain with pH 5.6, 4.0, and 2.5. NM, Ri, Fm, and Ri+Fm represent the four AMF treatments: inoculation with no mycorrhizal fungi, with Rhizophagus irregularis, with Funneliformis mosseae, and with the combination of the two fungi inoculum, respectively. Values are presented as the mean ± SE (n = 3). Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Jof 07 00296 g004
Figure 5. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on macronutrients of N (A), P (B), K+ (C), Na+ (D), Mg2+ (E), and Ca2+ (F) in shoot and root of Torreya grandis under acid rain with pH 5.6, 4.0, and 2.5. NM, Ri, Fm, and Ri+Fm represent the four AMF treatments: inoculation with no mycorrhizal fungi, with Rhizophagus irregularis, with Funneliformis mosseae, and with the combination of the two fungi inoculum, respectively. Values are presented as the mean ± SE (n = 3). Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on macronutrients of N (A), P (B), K+ (C), Na+ (D), Mg2+ (E), and Ca2+ (F) in shoot and root of Torreya grandis under acid rain with pH 5.6, 4.0, and 2.5. NM, Ri, Fm, and Ri+Fm represent the four AMF treatments: inoculation with no mycorrhizal fungi, with Rhizophagus irregularis, with Funneliformis mosseae, and with the combination of the two fungi inoculum, respectively. Values are presented as the mean ± SE (n = 3). Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Jof 07 00296 g005
Figure 6. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on acid−tolerance index (ATI) (A) and mycorrhizal growth response (MGR) (B) of Torreya grandis under acid rain with pH 5.6, 4.0, and 2.5. NM, Ri, Fm, and Ri+Fm represent the four AMF treatments: inoculation with no mycorrhizal fungi, with Rhizophagus irregularis, with Funneliformis mosseae, and with the combination of the two fungi inoculum, respectively. Values are presented as the mean ± SE (n = 6). Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 6. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on acid−tolerance index (ATI) (A) and mycorrhizal growth response (MGR) (B) of Torreya grandis under acid rain with pH 5.6, 4.0, and 2.5. NM, Ri, Fm, and Ri+Fm represent the four AMF treatments: inoculation with no mycorrhizal fungi, with Rhizophagus irregularis, with Funneliformis mosseae, and with the combination of the two fungi inoculum, respectively. Values are presented as the mean ± SE (n = 6). Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Jof 07 00296 g006
Figure 7. Relationships between mycorrhizal growth response (MGR) and mycorrhizal colonization (A), acid−tolerance index (ATI) (B), shoot−P (C), shoot−Zn2+ (D), and root−Fe2+ (E) of Torreya grandis under the interactions of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and acid rain.
Figure 7. Relationships between mycorrhizal growth response (MGR) and mycorrhizal colonization (A), acid−tolerance index (ATI) (B), shoot−P (C), shoot−Zn2+ (D), and root−Fe2+ (E) of Torreya grandis under the interactions of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and acid rain.
Jof 07 00296 g007
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xia, L.; Shao, C.; Zhang, N.; Wu, A.; Xie, J.; Qiu, Y.; He, X.; Pei, J.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y. Improved Tolerance of Mycorrhizal Torreya grandis Seedlings to Sulfuric Acid Rain Related to Phosphorus and Zinc Contents in Shoots. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 296. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof7040296

AMA Style

Xia L, Shao C, Zhang N, Wu A, Xie J, Qiu Y, He X, Pei J, Wang X, Wang Y. Improved Tolerance of Mycorrhizal Torreya grandis Seedlings to Sulfuric Acid Rain Related to Phosphorus and Zinc Contents in Shoots. Journal of Fungi. 2021; 7(4):296. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof7040296

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xia, Lina, Changliang Shao, Naili Zhang, Aiping Wu, Jiangbo Xie, Yajing Qiu, Xiaobin He, Jia Pei, Xudong Wang, and Yanhong Wang. 2021. "Improved Tolerance of Mycorrhizal Torreya grandis Seedlings to Sulfuric Acid Rain Related to Phosphorus and Zinc Contents in Shoots" Journal of Fungi 7, no. 4: 296. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof7040296

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop