IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v11y2021i10p934-d644756.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mycorrhizal Inoculation and Chemical Fertilizer Interactions in Pineapple under Field Conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Dora Trejo

    (Facultad de Ciencias Agrícolas, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa 91090, Mexico)

  • Wendy Sangabriel-Conde

    (Facultad de Ciencias Agrícolas, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa 91090, Mexico)

  • Mayra E. Gavito-Pardo

    (Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico, Morelia 58190, Mexico)

  • Jacob Banuelos

    (Facultad de Ciencias Agrícolas, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa 91090, Mexico)

Abstract

Excessive inorganic fertilizers applied to pineapple crops in Mexico cause the progressive degradation and pollution of soils in the short- and long-term, and they also increase production costs. An alternative to reduce excessive fertilization is its partial substitution by nutrition and growth enhancing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). The goal of this research was to compare the effect of AMF inoculation combined with different fertilizer doses and full chemical fertilization on pineapple yield variables in a commercial plantation. We used a randomized block design with six treatments: a non-inoculated control with 100% chemical fertilization, and five treatments with AMF inoculation and fertilization doses of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% chemical fertilization. There were four replicates of each treatment containing 30 plants in each experimental unit (plot). We measured the dry weight of the D-leaf 9 months after planting, and the root mycorrhizal colonization percentage, yield, and fruit quality after 18 months. Mycorrhizal inoculation equated to 100% chemical fertilization already when combined with 25% fertilization and surpassed it when combined with 50% fertilization in most of the yield variables measured. The fruit mass and organoleptic variables were significantly higher in mycorrhizal plants with 50% fertilization than in the non-inoculated control and the treatments inoculated with AMF and combined with 0%, 25%, 75%, and 100% of a dose of chemical fertilizer. Inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi in the field could reduce chemical fertilizer application by 50%, with no yield loss and with improved fruit quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Dora Trejo & Wendy Sangabriel-Conde & Mayra E. Gavito-Pardo & Jacob Banuelos, 2021. "Mycorrhizal Inoculation and Chemical Fertilizer Interactions in Pineapple under Field Conditions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-8, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:10:p:934-:d:644756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/10/934/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/10/934/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Qinpu Liu & Yuling Guo & John Giesy, 2015. "Spatio-temporal effects of fertilization in Anhui Province, China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 1197-1207, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yong Zhang & Pulin Kong & Fan Wang & Limei Zhao & Kaiyun Qian & Yadong Zhang & Xiaorong Fan, 2022. "Effects of Carbon and Nitrogen Fertilisers on Rice Quality of the OsNRT2.3b -Overexpressing Line," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-13, June.
    2. Abdoulaye Fofana Fall & Grace Nakabonge & Joseph Ssekandi & Hassna Founoune-Mboup & Arfang Badji & Abibatou Ndiaye & Malick Ndiaye & Paul Kyakuwa & Otim Godfrey Anyoni & Clovis Kabaseke & Amos Kipkemo, 2023. "Combined Effects of Indigenous Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) and NPK Fertilizer on Growth and Yields of Maize and Soil Nutrient Availability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-12, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:10:p:934-:d:644756. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.