<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">AS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Agricultural Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2156-8553</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/as.2015.612141</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">AS-62134</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Biomedical&amp;Life Sciences</subject><subject> Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus Mediate Changes in Mycorrhizosphere Soil Aggregates
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>ao</surname><given-names>Liang</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Xiaojun</surname><given-names>Shi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Tao</surname><given-names>Guo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sili</surname><given-names>Peng</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Beibei District Agricultural Committee, Chongqing, China</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>The National Monitoring Base for Purple Soil Fertility and Fertilizer Efficiency, Southwest University,
Chongqing, China</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>College of Resources and Environment, Southwest University, Chongqing, China</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>swuliangtao@163.com(XS)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>10</day><month>12</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>06</volume><issue>12</issue><fpage>1455</fpage><lpage>1463</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>15</day>	<month>September</month>	<year>2015</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>21</month>	<year>December</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>23</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2015</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Many studies have shown that arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungus has an important role in soil aggregate formation and stabilization. While most studies about the effects of AM fungus on soil aggregate have experimental set-ups in single pots or containers with two compartments, these studies cannot differentiate the effects of roots, mycorrhizal roots or hyphae. In this study we used containers with four compartments to split the roots and quantitatively compare the change of soil aggregate in the mycorrhizosphere soil, rhizosphere soil, hyphosphere soil and bulk soil. Our results demonstrate a significant positive correlation among hyphal length density, easily extractable glomalin (EEG) and aggregate mean weight diameter (MWD), geometric mean diameter (GMD) and percentage of soil macroaggregate with a diameter larger than 0.25 mm (R
  <sub>0.25</sub>). The GMD and MWD of R
  <sub>0.25</sub> in the hyphal compartment were higher than those in the non-inoculated root compartment, but were lower than those in the mycorrhizal compartment. This suggests the mycorrhizal hyphae had a greater effect than the non-inoculated roots, but less of an effect than the mycorrhizal roots on the formation and stabilization of soil aggregate. The results reveal that plant roots, mycorrhizal roots and mycorrhizal hyphae contribute to aggregate stability in individual ways and that their effects are additive, creating a synergistic stabilizing effect.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Hyphae</kwd><kwd> Hyphosphere</kwd><kwd> Mycorrhizae</kwd><kwd> Rhizosphere</kwd><kwd> Water Stable Aggregate</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Soil structure refers to the aggregate stability and the arrangement of individual soil particles. Soil aggregate stability is a critical soil property affecting a wide range of biogeochemical and physical processes in agricultural and natural environments [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref1">1</xref>] . Statistics such as geometric mean diameter (GMD), mean weight diameter (MWD) and R<sub>0.25</sub> (the percentage of the soil macroaggregate with a diameter more than 0.25 mm) have been historically used [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref3">3</xref>] to quantitatively describe the stability characteristics and distribution of soil aggregate. Most high plants, including pasture plants and major crop species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref4">4</xref>] , can form associations with arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungus [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref5">5</xref>] and AM are important components of soil and plant systems. Extensive networks of AM fungal hyphae spread from mycorrhizal-infected plant roots into the surroundings and play important roles in physical and chemical processes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref6">6</xref>] . Glomalin is a hydrophobic proteinaceous and insoluble substance produced by AM fungus [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref7">7</xref>] that acts as glue, binding soil particles together [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref8">8</xref>] and forming soil aggregates. It can be detected or quantified in different ways and Rillig [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref9">9</xref>] developed a method of soil extraction (121˚C in citrate buffer) that was then evaluated with a Bradford assay as glomalin-related soil protein (GRSP). Many reports have shown that AM associations are able to affect the formation and maintenance of soil aggregates through large networks of fungal hyphae and their exudates (glomalin, for example) and residues [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref11">11</xref>] .</p><p>However, most of these earlier studies have been based on single container experiments using sterilized soil [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref12">12</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref14">14</xref>] , field observations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref15">15</xref>] or experimental studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref16">16</xref>] . In these studies the roots and hyphae were studied together and the effects solely attributed to AM hyphae were detected by conceptual models [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref17">17</xref>] or mathematical analysis (e.g. path analysis) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref18">18</xref>] .</p><p>In this study, we present a novel experimental device that consists of four compartments used to independently measure the effects of plant roots, mycorrhizal roots, and mycorrhizal hyphae on soil aggregate. These culturing conditions are different from the conditions used in other studies. Our objectives were to determine: 1) the direct effects of mycorrhizae and its root and fungal components on soil aggregate; and 2) the relationship among hyphae, hyphal exudates (GRSP) and the stability and distribution of soil aggregate in the light of MWD, GMD and R<sub>0.25</sub>.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Mycorrhizae, Soil and Plants</title><p>The AM fungi used were Glomus intraradices, G. mosseae and G. etunicatum provided by the College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Southwest University. The mycorrhiazal inoculum consisted of soil containing spores and colonized clover-root fragments. The host plant species used was clover (Trifolium repens L.). Soil was collected from the National Monitoring Base of Purple Soil Fertility and Fertilizer Efficiency, Southwest University, Beibei District, Chongqing, China. The soil was comprised of a purple soil (termed regosol in the taxonomy of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and entisolsin U.S. taxonomy) and a sandy loam (clay 24.1%, silt 46.6%, sand 29.3%), with pH (soil: water ratio of 1:2.5) of 7.1, organic matter of 10.79 g∙kg<sup>−1</sup>, total N of 0.78 g∙kg<sup>−1</sup>, total P of 0.82 g∙kg<sup>−1</sup>, total K of 20.54 g∙kg<sup>−1</sup> and available P(Olson-P) of 10.28 mg∙kg<sup>−1</sup>. The soil material was sieved (10 mm) to remove stones and roots. Soil was irradiated with gamma-rays to remove native microbes from the soil while leaving the soil structure intact.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Experimental Unit and Design</title><p>Plants were grown in containers made of acrylic material with thickness of 3 mm [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref19">19</xref>] . The containers consisted of four compartments (L &#215; W &#215; H: 5 &#215; 15 &#215; 20 cm for each) with two compartments on either side of a solid barrier, and each two adjacent compartments were separated by screens (thickness, 37.5 μm; L &#215; W: 21 &#215; 17 cm).</p><p>Plant roots were split and trained to grow into the soils of the two (inside) compartments on either side of the central solid barrier. The soil on one side was inoculated with an AM fungus strain; the soil on the other side was not (non-AM). The screens were placed between the two outer and inner compartments to prevent penetration by plant roots into the outside compartments, but to permit the growth of hyphae and allow for an exchange of soil solution between compartments. By use of this arrangement, four different soils with different mycorrhizal influences were obtained, which were respectively labeled as plain soil (S: no roots, no AM hyphae), rhizosphere soil (R: plants roots without AM-infection), mycorrhizosphere soil (M: AM roots, AM hyphae) and hyphosphere soil (H: AM hyphae only). These four treatments (S, R, M and H) in this study were conducted in triplicate. Clover seeds were disinfected and rinsed with sterile deionized water. Then they were placed in culture pots filled with a 1:1 mixture of sand and soil (steam-sterilized at 121˚C for 60 min). The uniform seedlings were chosen when the roots were approximately 5 cm long and ten plants were transferred to the growth compartments, where an equal number of roots were trained to separate over the central solid barrier and grow into the soils of the R and M treatments.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Growth Conditions</title><p>During the cultivation period from Dec. 2012 to Mar. 2013, cultivated plants were placed in a culturing room (located in Southwest University, Chongqing) for 14 hours every day with a constant temperature of about 30˚C, relative humidity of 50% - 70% and an average photosynthetic photon flux density of 230 - 280 μ∙mol∙m<sup>−2</sup>∙s<sup>−1</sup> which was provided by reflector sunlight dysprosium lamps (DDF400, Nanjing, China). In order to keep soils in all four compartments at a similar moisture, the soils in the inside (R and M) and outside (S and H) compartments were watered daily and twice a week with tap water, respectively. Sponge was employed to cover the soil surface to minimize vaporization and avoid direct irradiation by sunlight.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Lab Analysis</title><p>After three months’ growth, plants were harvested and analyzed. Roots subsamples (0.5 g fresh weight) were cut into segments with length of 1 cm for determining the percentage of root length colonized by the mycorrhizal fungi, as described by Giovannetti and Mosse [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref20">20</xref>] . The shoot and the remaining root were dried in an oven at 70˚C and then weighed to measure the dry matter yield. The soil samples (with particle size &lt; 5 cm) collected from around the growing system were carefully broken manually into smaller aggregates (with size of about 1 cm), and then air-dried at ambient temperature. Wet sieving method described by Kemper and Rosenau [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref21">21</xref>] was employed to determine the composition of soil aggregates. Hyphae length was determined as described by Abbott [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref22">22</xref>] . Soil organic matter (OM) was detected by the potassium dichromate-volumetric method (digested by K<sub>2</sub>Cr<sub>2</sub>O<sub>7</sub>-H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub>; Lu, 2000). In our study, EEG and TG (Total Glomalin) were determined using the procedures described by Wright and Upadhyaya [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref8">8</xref>] . Briefly, 0.25 mm sieved soil was added into a centrifuge tube with citrate solution, followed by being autoclaved and centrifuged at speed of 4000 r for 5 min to separate the liquid and solid phases. The supernatant was transferred into another tube and stored at 4˚C before analysis. EEG was extracted with 8 ml of 200 mM citrate solution (pH = 7.0), by autoclaving at 121˚C for 30 min. TG was extracted repeatedly using with 50 ml of 200 mM citrate (pH 8.0) by autoclaving at 121˚C for 60 min. This extraction processes continued until the glomalin supernatant concentrations were below detection limit. Extracts from each cycle were merged and then centrifuged at 10,000 r for 10 min to remove residual soil particles. Protein content was measured by Bradford assay with bovine serum albumin as the standard.</p><p>Soil structure stability was evaluated by mean weight diameter (MWD) and geometric mean diameter (GMD) taking micro-aggregates with diameter of 1 - 2 mm as a standard, due to its sensitivity to short-term treatments of soil [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref8">8</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2_5"><title>2.5. Data Analysis</title><p>Mean weight diameter (MWD) and geometric mean diameter (GMD) were used to evaluate the stability of soil aggregates and calculated with the following formula [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref21">21</xref>] :</p><disp-formula id="scirp.62134-formula1581"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/5-3001247x7.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where x<sub>i</sub> is the sieve opening size (mm); w<sub>i</sub> is the proportion of the total sample mass occurring in the i size fraction; n is the number of particle fractions.</p><p>The proportion of soil macroaggregate of a diameter larger than 0.25 mm was calculated by:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.62134-formula1582"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/5-3001247x8.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/5-3001247x9.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>is the weight of macroaggregates with a diameter larger than 0.25 mm, M<sub>T</sub> is the total sample weight,<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/5-3001247x10.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is the weight of microaggregates with a diameter less than 0.25 mm.</p><p>SAS statistical software package (vers. 6.12; SAS Institute, Cary, NC) were used to analyze the date by two- way or one-way analysis of variance.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Plant Growth</title><p>The barrier treatment failed to show any significant impact on Plant growth (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>), but plants in the M compartment tended to higher more root biomass than in the R compartment. The P status of roots was significantly affected by mycorrhizal inoculation so that roots inoculated with G. etunicatum and G. intraradices had significant higher P uptake than corresponding roots in the R compartment.</p><p>The mycorrhizal inoculation rate was not significantly different among the three fungi (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). Roots of inoculated plants were extensively mycorrhizal, with the mean percentage of root length colonized ranging from 56.2% - 61.3%. The roots in R compartments were not inoculated, as expected.</p><p>Our results demonstrate that hyphae can penetrate a nylon barrier between compartments M and H. Hyphae length extracted from the soil ranged from 71 cm∙g<sup>−1</sup> to 87 cm∙g<sup>−1</sup> and showed a trend of M &gt; H. G. etunicatum had higher hyphal densities in comparison to G. intraradices and G. mosseae.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Shoot dry weight (g), shoot nitrogen concentration (g∙kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>) and shoot phosphorus content uptake (mg) of clover plants cultivated in the special containers consisting of four compartments</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Mycorrhizal status</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Shoot dry weight (g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Shoot P concentration (g∙kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Shoot P uptake (mg)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >G. intraradices</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.32 &#177; 1.97 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.26 &#177; 34.54 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >198.22 &#177; 34.57 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >G. mosseae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.87 &#177; 3.71a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.31 &#177; 43.94a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >258.66 &#177; 36.69a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >G. etunicatum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.59 &#177; 4.33a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.43 &#177; 47.09a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >214.75 &#177; 32.33 a</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Notes: The values shown are the mean of four replicates. Letters in the table within each cell relate to significant differences between the mycorrhizal inoculants at the 5% level based on analysis of variance. a = we cannot reject the null hypothesis that these values are the same.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Colonization rate (proportion of root length colonized by AM, %), mean dry root weight (g), root P concentration (g∙kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>) and root P uptake (mg) of clover in the mycorrhizosphere and rhizosphere compartments</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Mycorrhizal status</th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Rate of inoculation (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Root dry weight (g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Root P concentration (g∙kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Root P uptake (mg)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >G. intraradices</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >M</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.9 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.56 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.43 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.73 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ND</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.28 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.76 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.21 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >G. mosseae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >M</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.6 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.82 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.43 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.16 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ND</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.46 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.16 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.91b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >G. etunicatum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >M</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.2 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.73 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.25 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.08 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ND</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.41 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.58 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.16 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Significance due to:</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Inoculation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Split root</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Inoculation * Split root</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Notes: Values in the table are the means of xx replicates. Letters in the table within each cell relate to significant differences between the mycorrhizal inoculants at the 5% level based on analysis of variance. NS = not significant; * = P &lt; 0.05; ** = P &lt; 0.01; *** = P &lt; 0.001; ND = not detected.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Soil Variables</title><p>The barrier treatment significantly affected the TG concentration in the soil (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). TG declined in the following pattern: M &gt; H &gt; R &gt; S. The highest value of TG was 4.96 g∙kg<sup>−1</sup> measured in the M compartments inoculated with G. intraradices. Due to the different extraction procedures used, the value for TG (4.56 - 4.96 g∙kg<sup>−1</sup>) was larger than the values for EEG (0.89 - 1.05 g∙kg<sup>−1</sup>). The differences of TG or EEG values between the AM fungus isolates were not significant. Neither AM inoculation nor the barrier treatment significantly affected the contents of EEG or OM in the soil.</p><p>In this experiment, the values for soil MWD, GMD and R<sub>0.25</sub> in M compartment were significantly higher than in the other compartments. There was a pattern of soil aggregate size of M &gt; H &gt; R &gt; S from largest to smallest (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Relationships between Fungal and Soil Variables</title><p>MWD, GMD and R<sub>0.25</sub> were significantly related to each other, their correlation coefficients were 0.958, 0.863 and 0.791, respectively (P &lt; 0.001, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>). Additionally, MWD, GMD and R<sub>0.25</sub> were positively related to EEG. Although the correlation coefficients were small, correlation between the length of hyphae and the three indices of soil aggregate size was significant and positive, and the correlations of latter were higher than the former.</p><p>Additionally, hyphae length was positively related to TG, EEG and colonization rate. Out of these variables, colonization rate had the highest correlation with hyphae length (r = 0.603, P &lt; 0.05).</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Hyphal density (cm∙g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>), concentration of organic matter (g∙kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>), total glomalin (TG, g∙kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>) and easily-extractable glomalin (EEG, g∙kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>) content of soils in the four compartments</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Mycorrhizal status</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Length of hyphae (cm∙g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Organic matter (g∙kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >TG ( g∙kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >EEG ( g∙kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >G. intraradices</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75.16 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.96 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.96 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.03 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.63 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.61 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.95 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >H</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71.63 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.07 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.81 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.05 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.72 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.58 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.01 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >G. mosseae</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.53 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.64 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.87 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.96 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.15 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.60 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.89 c</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >H</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74.99 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.41 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.86 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.04 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.29 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.63 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.94 bc</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >G. etunicatum</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86.53 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.26 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.89 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.05 ab</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.38 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.56 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.97 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >H</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78.24 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.71 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.83 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.13 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.49 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.63 c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Significance due to:</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Inoculation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Split root</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Inoculation* Split root</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Notes: Values in the table are the means of xx replicates. Letters in the table within each cell relate to significant differences between the mycorrhizal inoculants at the 5% level based on analysis of variance. NS = not significant; * = P &lt; 0.05; ** = P &lt; 0.01; *** = P &lt; 0.001.</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Mean weight diameter (MWD), geometric mean diameter (GMD) and the percentage of soil macroaggregates with a diameter larger than 0.25 mm (R<sub>0.25</sub>, %)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Mycorrhizal status</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >MWD</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >GMD</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >R<sub>0.25 </sub>(%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >G. intraradices</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.25 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.71 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.38 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.24 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.49 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >H</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.39 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.23 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.37 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.36 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.22 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.21 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >G. mosseae</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.49 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.26 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.12 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.43b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.23 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.93 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >H</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.48 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.24 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.29 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.23 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.65 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >G. etunicatum</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.53 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.27 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.68 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.47 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.24 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.28 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >H</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.26 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.38 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.48 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.25 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.79 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Significance due to:</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Inoculation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Split root</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Inoculation* Split root</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Notes: Values in the table are the means of xx replicates. Letters in the table within each cell relate to significant differences between the mycorrhizal inoculants at the 5% level based on analysis of variance. NS = not significant; * = P &lt; 0.05; ** = P &lt; 0.01; *** = P &lt; 0.001.</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Correlation coefficients and significance levels among the soil aggregate characteristics (wet-sieving, MWD = mean weight diameter; GMD = geometric mean diameter; R<sub>0.25 </sub>= the percentage of soil macroaggregates with a diameter larger than 0.25 mm, %), easily extractable glomalin (EEG, g∙kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>), total glomalin (TG, g∙kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>), organic matter (OM, g∙kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>), colonisation rate (proportion of the root length colonised by AM, %) and length of hyphae (cm∙g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>). Sample size = 48</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >OM</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >EEG</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >TG</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Colonization rate</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Length of hyphae</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >MWD</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >GMD</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >R<sub>0.25</sub></th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >OM</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >--</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >EEG</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.376*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TG</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.049</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.536**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Colonization rate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.038</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.079</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.038</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length of hyphae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.231</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.543**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.412*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.603**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >MWD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.404*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.197</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.383*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.609**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >GWD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.061</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.329*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.211</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.389*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.541**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.958**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R<sub>0.25</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.023</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.365*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.182</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.251</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.727**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.863**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.791**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Significant at * = P &lt; 0.05; ** = P &lt; 0.01; *** = P &lt; 0.001.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Changes in Soil Aggregates</title><p>Numerous studies have shown that roots, mycelia and GRSP all affect soil macroaggregate formation and stability [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref6">6</xref>] , but differing experimental conditions have prevented the comparison of the magnitude of the effects of these three factors. Furthermore, the interaction effects of these three variables have been understudied.</p><p>The higher GMD, MWD, and R<sub>0.25</sub> in the M and H compartments (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>) demonstrates that even within the short time of this experiment, the positive mycorrhizae effects on the soil aggregate were measurable. The mycorrhizal inoculation contributed to aggregate stability in a direct way that was able to be separated from the effects of the plant roots alone. The combined effects of the plant roots and the mycorrhizae were additive as has been described by Andrade [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref19">19</xref>] . The stabilization of soil aggregates is probably influenced by the individual action and the interaction of the plant and fungal systems.</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. Extraradical Mycelium and Soil Aggregates</title><p>The significant and positive correlation between the hyphae length and MWD and GMD (r = 0.609, 0.541 P &lt; 0.01, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) demonstrated the importance of the mycelial network for the formation and stability of soil aggregations. This is thought to occur by hyphal enveloping of soil particles [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref18">18</xref>] and such a relationship has been directly observed [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref12">12</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref23">23</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref24">24</xref>] , but included the potentially confounding effects of the plant roots. Our results show that these effects are independent of the effects of plant roots. Rillig et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref24">24</xref>] and Siddiky et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref25">25</xref>] also considered the influence of plant roots and used a nylon screen compartment and an in vitro bioreactor system to detect the unique effect of the hyphae. However, these studies prepared the soil by steaming it and eliminating the resident AM communities. We found that the relative abundance of hyphae of G. etunicatum produced a corresponding higher MWD and GMD in soil aggregates and confirms a former study about the effects of various AM taxa on soil aggregate stabilization [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref26">26</xref>] . Given how many species of ACM potentially infect plant roots, the differences in their effects on soil aggregates deserves further study.</p></sec><sec id="s4_3"><title>4.3. GRSP and Soil Aggregates</title><p>The special role of GRSP in soil aggregate formation and stability has increasingly been the subject of a number of research projects [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref27">27</xref>] . Approximately 80% of GRSP (by weight) produced by fungi is contained in hyphae and spores in comparison to the amount of GRSP released into the culture medium by the fungi [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref28">28</xref>] , strongly suggesting that the impact of GRSP on soil aggregates is primarily derived from the hyphae. While TG levels had a positive correlation with macroaggregate abundance under each metric, none of these relations were significant. TG high-temperature extraction from soil can inadvertently be contaminated with proteins and polyphenols [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref29">29</xref>] , and therefore EEG may be a better measure of glomalin abundance.</p><p>A clear result from our study is that roots, mycelia, and GRSP have independent and synergistic impacts on macroaggregate formation and stability that have not been detectable with the experimental conditions used in previous research. This is the first study to compare the magnitude of effects between these three factors and our results suggest that their interactions deserve further study. AM fungus-mediated contributions to soil aggregates can be particularly important in managed ecosystems and natural. Although experimental results obtained under specified conditions are not necessarily representative of field conditions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62134-ref26">26</xref>] , the method used in this research may help us better understand the relationships between mycorrhizal symbiosis, plant productivity, and soil quality.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>We found that even within the short time of this experiment, there were direct, positive effects of AM fungus inoculation on WSA stability that were measurable. Plant non-inoculated roots, mycorrhizal roots, and mycorrhizae hyphae contributed to soil aggregate stability in individual ways and their effects were additive when they acted in concert.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 40701085) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant NO.XDJK2010B012).</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>TaoLiang,XiaojunShi,TaoGuo,SiliPeng, (2015) Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus Mediate Changes in Mycorrhizosphere Soil Aggregates. Agricultural Sciences,06,1455-1463. doi: 10.4236/as.2015.612141</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>NOTES</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.62134-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Amezketa, E. (1999) Soil Aggregate Stability: A Review. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 14, 83-151. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J064v14n02_08</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">van Bavel, C.H.M. (1949) Mean Weight-Diameter of Soil Aggregates as a Statistical Index of Aggregation. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 14, 20-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1950.036159950014000C0005x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gardner, W.R. (1956) Representation of Soil Aggregate-Size Distribution by a Logarithmic-Normal Distribution. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 20, 151-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1956.03615995002000020003x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Koide, R.T. and Mosse, B. (2004) A History of Research on Arbuscular Mycorrhiza. Mycorrhiza, 14, 145-163. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00572-004-0307-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Smith, S.E. and Read, D.J. (2008) Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. Academic Press, Elsevier, New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rillig, M.C. and Mummey, D.L. (2006) Mycorrhizas and Soil Structure. New Phytologist, 171, 41-53. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01750.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rillig, M.C., Wright, S.F and Eviner, V.T. (2002) The Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Glomalin in Soil Aggregation: Comparing Effects of Five Plant Species. Plant and Soil, 238, 325-333. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014483303813</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wright, S. and Upadhyaya, A. (1998) A Survey of Soils for Aggregate Stability and Glomalin, a Glycoprotein Produced by Hyphae of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. Plant and Soil, 198, 97-107. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004347701584</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rillig, M.C. (2004) Arbuscular Mycorrhizae, Glomalin, and Soil Aggregation. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 84, 355-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.4141/S04-003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tisdall, J.M. and Oades, J. (1982) Organic Matter and Water-Stable Aggregates in Soils. Journal of Soil Science, 33, 141-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1982.tb01755.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Miller, R. and Jastrow, J. (1990) Hierarchy of Root and Mycorrhizal Fungal Interactions with Soil Aggregation. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 22, 579-584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(90)90001-G</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Piotrowski, J.S., Denich, T., Klironomos, J.N., Graham, J.M. and Rillig, M.C. (2004) The Effects of Arbuscular Mycorrhizas on Soil Aggregation Depend on the Interaction between Plant and Fungal Species. New Phytologist, 164, 365-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01181.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bedini, S., Avio, L., Argese, E. and Giovannetti, M. (2007) Effects of Long-Term Land Use on Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Glomalin-Related Soil Protein. Agriculture Ecosystems &amp; Environment, 120, 463-466.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.09.010</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Siddiky, M.R.K., Kohler, J., Cosme, M. and Rillig, M.C. (2012) Soil Biota Effects on Soil Structure: Interactions between Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Mycelium and Collembola. Soil Biology &amp; Biochemistry, 50, 33-39.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.03.001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hontoria, C., Velasquez, R., Benito, M., Almorox, J. and Moliner, A. (2009) Bradford-Reactive Soil Proteins and Aggregate Stability under Abandoned versus Tilled Olive Groves in a Semi-Arid Calcisol. Soil Biology &amp; Biochemistry, 41, 1583-1585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.04.025</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wilson, G.W.T., Rice, C.W., Rillig, M.C., Springer, A. and Hartnett, D.C. (2009) Soil Aggregation and Carbon Sequestration Are Tightly Correlated with the Abundance of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi: Results from Long-Term Field Experiments. Ecology Letters, 12, 452-461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01303.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Caruso, T. and Rillig, M.C. (2011) Direct, Positive Feedbacks Produce Instability in Models of Interrelationships among Soil Structure, Plants and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. Soil Biology &amp; Biochemistry, 43, 1198-1206.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.02.009</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Miller, R. and Jastrow, J. (2000) Mycorrhizal Fungi Influence Soil Structure. In: Kapulnik, Y. and Douds Jr., D.D., Eds., Arbuscular Mycorrhizas: Physiology and Function, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 3-18.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0776-3_1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Andrade, G., Mihara, K.L., Linderman, R.G. and Bethlenfalvay, G.J. (1998) Soil Aggregation Status and Rhizobacteria in the Mycorrhizosphere. Plant and Soil, 202, 89-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004301423150</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Giovannetti, M. and Mosse, B. (1980) An Evaluation of Techniques for Measuring Vesicular Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Infection in Roots. New Phytologist, 84, 489-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1980.tb04556.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Kemper, W. and Rosenau, R. (1986) Aggregate Stability and Size Distribution. In: Klute, A., Ed., Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods, Agronomy Monograph, American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, 425-442.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abbott, L.K., Robson, A.D. and Deboer, G. (1984) The Effect of Phosphorus on the Formation of Hyphae in Soil by the Vesicular Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus, Glomus fasciculatum. New Phytologist, 97, 437-446.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1984.tb03609.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bearden, B.N. and Petersen, L. (2000) Influence of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Soil Structure and Aggregate Stability of a Vertisol. Plant and Soil, 218, 173-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014923911324</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rillig, M.C., Mardatin, N.F., Leifheit, E.F. and Antunes, P.M. (2010) Mycelium of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Increases Soil Water Repellency and Is Sufficient to Maintain Water-Stable Soil Aggregates. Soil Biology &amp; Biochemistry, 42, 1189-1191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.03.027</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Siddiky, M.R.K., Schaller, J., Caruso, T. and Rillig, M.C. (2012) Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Collembola Non-Additively Increase Soil Aggregation. Soil Biology &amp; Biochemistry, 47, 93-99.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.12.022</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Stefano, B., Elisa, P., Luciano, A., Sergio, P., Paolo, B., Emanuele, A. and Manuela, G. (2009) Changes in Soil Aggregation and Glomalin-Related Soil Protein Content as Affected by the Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Species Glomus mosseae and Glomus intraradices. Soil Biology &amp; Biochemistry, 41, 1491-1496.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.04.005</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fokom, R., Adamou, S., Teugwa, M.C., Boyogueno, A.D.B., Nana, W.L., Ngonkeu, M.E.L., Tchameni, N.S., Nwaga, D., Ndzomo, G.T. and Zollo, P.H.A. (2012) Glomalin Related Soil Protein, Carbon, Nitrogen and Soil Aggregate Stability as Affected by Land Use Variation in the Humid Forest Zone of South Cameroon. Soil &amp; Tillage Research, 120, 69-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.11.004</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Driver, J.D., Holben, W.E. and Rillig, M.C. (2005) Characterization of Glomalin as a Hyphal Wall Component of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. Soil Biology &amp; Biochemistry, 37, 101-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.06.011</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62134-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">David, P.J., Sara, G. and Bray, B. (2008) Glomalin Extraction and Measurement. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 240, 728-739.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>