Inoculating soil with mycorrhizal fungi can increase plant yield: study(phys.org)
phys.org
Inoculating soil with mycorrhizal fungi can increase plant yield: study
https://phys.org/news/2023-11-inoculating-soil-mycorrhizal-fungi-yield.html
38 comments
Mycorrhiza in soil help plant roots absorb nutrients.
Mycorrhiza: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhiza
Leaf mold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaf_mold
KNF > Indigenous microorganisms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_natural_farming#Indigen...
FWIU JWA is very similar to Castille soap?
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37171603 :
> A (soap-like) surfactant like JADAM Wetting Agent (JWA) which causes the applied treatments to stick to the plants might reduce fertilizer runoff levels; but Nitrogen-based fertilizer alone does not regenerate all of the components of topsoil. https://www.google.com/search?q=jadam+jwa
https://youtube.com/@JADAMORGANIC
> Mycorrhizae fungus in the soil help get nutrients to plant roots, and they need to be damp in order to prevent soil from turning to dirt due to solar radiation and oxidation. https://youtube.com/@soilfoodwebschool
Yield and Soil Fertility are valuable criteria to optimize for; with multi-criteria optimization.
Crop yield: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_yield
Soil fertility > Soil depletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_fertility#Soil_depletion
Mycorrhiza: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhiza
Leaf mold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaf_mold
KNF > Indigenous microorganisms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_natural_farming#Indigen...
FWIU JWA is very similar to Castille soap?
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37171603 :
> A (soap-like) surfactant like JADAM Wetting Agent (JWA) which causes the applied treatments to stick to the plants might reduce fertilizer runoff levels; but Nitrogen-based fertilizer alone does not regenerate all of the components of topsoil. https://www.google.com/search?q=jadam+jwa
https://youtube.com/@JADAMORGANIC
> Mycorrhizae fungus in the soil help get nutrients to plant roots, and they need to be damp in order to prevent soil from turning to dirt due to solar radiation and oxidation. https://youtube.com/@soilfoodwebschool
Yield and Soil Fertility are valuable criteria to optimize for; with multi-criteria optimization.
Crop yield: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_yield
Soil fertility > Soil depletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_fertility#Soil_depletion
Same deal with compost tea. Water, rabbit manure (for example), maybe an airstone, time.
Missing from the headline:
>"On a quarter of the plots, the mycorrhizal fungi enabled up to 40% better yields. That's huge," says the study's co-lead, Marcel van der Heijden, a soil ecologist at the University of Zurich and at Asgroscope. But there's a catch: on a third of the plots, the yield did not increase and sometimes even decreased.
Considering studies and trials that fail will also fail to get attention there's a problem: a significant uphill battle to getting the relationship right between fungi and crops to actually increase productivity.
These are complicated relationships that swing between parasitic and mutually beneficial depending on species, varieties, microclimate, and your favorite shade of blue. It is not at all a case of "add some fungi and everything will be better!", a lot of stuff has to be mechanistically understood and controlled and we're right at the beginning of that.
>"On a quarter of the plots, the mycorrhizal fungi enabled up to 40% better yields. That's huge," says the study's co-lead, Marcel van der Heijden, a soil ecologist at the University of Zurich and at Asgroscope. But there's a catch: on a third of the plots, the yield did not increase and sometimes even decreased.
Considering studies and trials that fail will also fail to get attention there's a problem: a significant uphill battle to getting the relationship right between fungi and crops to actually increase productivity.
These are complicated relationships that swing between parasitic and mutually beneficial depending on species, varieties, microclimate, and your favorite shade of blue. It is not at all a case of "add some fungi and everything will be better!", a lot of stuff has to be mechanistically understood and controlled and we're right at the beginning of that.
Okay, but this has been known for a while hasn’t it? I remember reading a statement like this in “Growing Gourmet and Medicinal Mushrooms” and that book was published in 1993.
Is the reason this is note worthy the % amount calculated by the study?
Is the reason this is note worthy the % amount calculated by the study?
Yes this has been known for a while. However it is often important to have scientific studies backing well-known information. Well-known information is often wrong, and there are also people who are familiar with the prevalence of the knowledge but are unconvinced or misinformed. In these cases, studies help avoid confusion and advance our collective knowledge.
In this case I am sure earlier studies have been done, but I would not write off further exploration just because a topic has been previously studied.
In this case I am sure earlier studies have been done, but I would not write off further exploration just because a topic has been previously studied.
I think it's the fact that it was applied to a field.
"A team of researchers from the universities of Zurich and Basel, Agroscope, and the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) has now shown for the first time on a large scale that applying mycorrhizal fungi in the field works. The fungi were mixed into the soil before sowing crops on 800 trial plots at 54 maize farms in northern and eastern Switzerland."
"A team of researchers from the universities of Zurich and Basel, Agroscope, and the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) has now shown for the first time on a large scale that applying mycorrhizal fungi in the field works. The fungi were mixed into the soil before sowing crops on 800 trial plots at 54 maize farms in northern and eastern Switzerland."
The regional maize yield record produced for a growing contests is only 25% higher than we can see from general production without meticulous care for the sake of a contest. Hard to fathom that this is moving the needle by 40%.
Article doesn't state yield w/ respect to best-yielding fields. But up to 40% higher yields on fields that had a good deal of pathogen fungi in the soil ("unhealthy" soils, if you will).
So this is not upping yields 40% across the board. More about bringing poorer-performing fields up to the level of better-performing ones.
Personally I think a well-managed field wouldn't need this type of inoculation, as it would have the beneficial fungi in its soil already (and these research findings seem to indicate this). The #1 thing there would be to disturb that soil as little as possible (like, no-till farming).
For less-well managed fields, this might be a quick 'n dirty fix to undo some of the shortcomings in a field's condition.
So this is not upping yields 40% across the board. More about bringing poorer-performing fields up to the level of better-performing ones.
Personally I think a well-managed field wouldn't need this type of inoculation, as it would have the beneficial fungi in its soil already (and these research findings seem to indicate this). The #1 thing there would be to disturb that soil as little as possible (like, no-till farming).
For less-well managed fields, this might be a quick 'n dirty fix to undo some of the shortcomings in a field's condition.
"Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) can enhance plant nutrient uptake and reduce plant stress; yet, large-scale field inoculation trials with AMF are missing, and so far, results remain unpredictable."
It's the second sentence of the abstract.
They conducted a large scale field trial of 54 fields.
It's the second sentence of the abstract.
They conducted a large scale field trial of 54 fields.
It is also written about extensively in The Holistic Orchard.
I use it when growing cannabis. Can confirm, noticeable difference in dry yield. (Not sure the exact percent but the title sounds close)
Also way less prone to catch other mushrooms out of the air.
My last garden went gangbusters when I introduced this to the soil, especially in the second & third years after starting with it. It was really neat to see (via digging) that it was also invading the lawn around the garden, & that the grass there was clearly healthier than the rest of the lawn. The spores also did great when introduced to the compost pile.
Tree/fungus interaction is also interesting. I planted four fruit trees, two near where an old tree had been taken down, and two on the other side of the lawn. Same soil, same watering, but the second two died — the only real difference I could see was a sizable patch of fungus which had been growing around the old tree, & which was still in the lawn near the trees that lived. Next time I plant trees I'm going to add in a bucket of dirt taken from an old-growth patch around the sapling roots & see what difference that might make.
Tree/fungus interaction is also interesting. I planted four fruit trees, two near where an old tree had been taken down, and two on the other side of the lawn. Same soil, same watering, but the second two died — the only real difference I could see was a sizable patch of fungus which had been growing around the old tree, & which was still in the lawn near the trees that lived. Next time I plant trees I'm going to add in a bucket of dirt taken from an old-growth patch around the sapling roots & see what difference that might make.
Check out Elaine Ingham's talks on these topics on YouTube, such as The Roots of Your profits:
https://youtu.be/x2H60ritjag?si=snrZkCZqrIUAdSa2
https://youtu.be/x2H60ritjag?si=snrZkCZqrIUAdSa2
Following piece of practical layman info was hard to locate in TFA, had to look up Wikipedia instead:
"Rhizophagus irregularis (previously known as Glomus intraradices[3][4]) is an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus used as a soil inoculant in agriculture and horticulture. Rhizophagus irregularis is also commonly used in scientific studies of the effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on plant and soil improvement. Until 2001, the species was known and widely marketed as Glomus intraradices, but molecular analysis of ribosomal DNA led to the reclassification of all arbuscular fungi from Zygomycota phylum to the Glomeromycota phylum."
"Rhizophagus irregularis (previously known as Glomus intraradices[3][4]) is an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus used as a soil inoculant in agriculture and horticulture. Rhizophagus irregularis is also commonly used in scientific studies of the effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on plant and soil improvement. Until 2001, the species was known and widely marketed as Glomus intraradices, but molecular analysis of ribosomal DNA led to the reclassification of all arbuscular fungi from Zygomycota phylum to the Glomeromycota phylum."
The biggest reason I hear from farmers whey they don't switch to organic farming practices is that yields are too unpredictable (and usually much lower) with current organic methods for field crops.
So maybe someone smarter than me could chime in: Could we expect similar results with field crops like corn, soybeans, wheat?
So maybe someone smarter than me could chime in: Could we expect similar results with field crops like corn, soybeans, wheat?
> yields are too unpredictable (and usually much lower) with current organic methods for field crops.
While big yields are fun, at the end of the day all that matters is producing something for consumers that justifies the effort. The yield itself is ultimately immaterial. The trouble is that organic methods don't get you there – at least not without being certified organic, which is its own can of worms.
> Could we expect similar results with field crops like corn
The article suggests that the study was done specifically on corn (maize).
While big yields are fun, at the end of the day all that matters is producing something for consumers that justifies the effort. The yield itself is ultimately immaterial. The trouble is that organic methods don't get you there – at least not without being certified organic, which is its own can of worms.
> Could we expect similar results with field crops like corn
The article suggests that the study was done specifically on corn (maize).
Masanobu Fukuoka[1] was able to get high yields of rice (top 5% in Japan) while only using natural methods of farming. Also, while other fields were left fallow, he got a crop of barley. So basically double the yields of any other farm.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masanobu_Fukuoka
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masanobu_Fukuoka
Soil microbiome has a large of number of similarities with the human microbiome. It's an overlooked factor that matters a lot to human/plant health. There are many unexplored facets that may overturn conventional understanding of human/plant systems and health. Supplementing the microbiome can help treat human/plant diseases. The microbiome is important for nutrient processing. There's no accepted way to systematically assess the microbiome, let alone any test that can properly identify problems with the human/soil microbiome beyond "something very bad is here that shouldn't be", or "there's almost nothing here when there should be". Interventions are hard to quantify beyond distant effects like yield or reported symptoms.
It's a bit silly, but sometimes I have to remind myself that fungi aren't plants.
Right? I didn’t know until relatively recently they’re considered a third kingdom: flora, fauna, funga.
And the fourth kingdom that are neither plants, animals, nor fungus: Protista. The "animalgae"
Animals are more closely related to fungi than we are to plants. Our closest shared ancestors were likely these little guys: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choanoflagellate
Source: I took Bio 101 last semester so I'm pretty much an expert now.
Source: I took Bio 101 last semester so I'm pretty much an expert now.
I think protists (like the amoeba) are considered a fourth kingdom within the eukaryotes. But that isn't even the highest level of classification: eukaryotes are only one of three domains of life, the other two being bacteria and archaea. (Eukaryotes are believed to have originated as symbiotic unions of ancestors of archaea and bacteria.)
It's more like animals, fungi and plants are weird colonial protists.
I always said GMO fungus is going to be the next big thing. its going to be wild
It’s not.
Fungus is well established and documented as-is. No need for genetically modified.
Just choose the right ones for the application
Fungus is well established and documented as-is. No need for genetically modified.
Just choose the right ones for the application
My application is I want to be able to drill a hole and fill it with food and fungal spores. Later I want to come back and harvest a giant mushroom which will be full of lithium that the mycelium has pulled from the ground and concentrated at the surface.
Can you suggest a species for me to use? I know that there are ones that do this, more or less, for arsenic, but I want lithium instead.
Can you suggest a species for me to use? I know that there are ones that do this, more or less, for arsenic, but I want lithium instead.
> No need for genetically modified.
Yeah, same could be said for lots of things, but Monsanto can't patent generic fungus, but if they insert a gene to make it die off every year, they can patent it, charge lots of money, re-sell it over and over, and sue anyone who happens to grow some without paying themn.
Yeah, same could be said for lots of things, but Monsanto can't patent generic fungus, but if they insert a gene to make it die off every year, they can patent it, charge lots of money, re-sell it over and over, and sue anyone who happens to grow some without paying themn.
Charge lots of money for what?
one example I can think of fungus that is souped up to be able to liberate phosphate or <insert trace mineral> from the local rocks in the area at higher rates than whats around there.
Yeah, it would need to have some advantage over the ability of natural mycorrhizal fungi, and improving the uptake and exchange of phosphate and iron might be good, especially for soils where those ions are less mobile, like clays and very basic soils. Just given the realities of climate change, increasing arable land could be a huge bonus for some crops. That would be the good side. The negative side would be along the lines of predatory Monsanto/Bayer seed practices. See <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-organic-lawsuit-...>
My limited understanding is that there's some kind of exchange happening within these mycelial networks. The plants trade hexose for phosphates and nitrates, more or less.
One hack that might be worth trying is to see if we can can supply another energy source (non food grade sugars) so that the plant doesn't end up "paying" for phosphates and nitrates with nutrients that we'd rather keep for ourselves.
Maybe that's as simple as adding compost, but it could be that some tampering is warranted to ensure that the plant gets a free ride and the fungus indeed quests after the nutrients we want it to (verses just taking our bribe and ignoring the plant, which it no longer needs as an energy source).
One hack that might be worth trying is to see if we can can supply another energy source (non food grade sugars) so that the plant doesn't end up "paying" for phosphates and nitrates with nutrients that we'd rather keep for ourselves.
Maybe that's as simple as adding compost, but it could be that some tampering is warranted to ensure that the plant gets a free ride and the fungus indeed quests after the nutrients we want it to (verses just taking our bribe and ignoring the plant, which it no longer needs as an energy source).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_natural_farming