Downloads provided by UsageCounts
doi: 10.1111/nph.15602
pmid: 30657593
The Tansley review by Ryan & Graham (2018) provided a welcome critical perspective on the role of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi in large‐scale industrial agriculture, with a focus on cereals (wheat, Triticum aestivum). They conclude that there is little evidence that farmers should consider the abundance or diversity of AM fungi when managing crops. We welcome many of the points made in the paper, as they give an opportunity for self‐reflection, considering that the importance of AM fungi in agroecosystems is often taken for granted. However, we suggest that it is too early to draw the overall conclusion that the management of AM fungi by farmers is currently not warranted. We offer the following points to contribute to the discussion. The first point pertains to the overall focus of Ryan & Graham (2018), which strongly determines the recommendations at which the authors arrive. This scope is limited to yield, at the expense of neglecting aspects of sustainability. We then argue that AM fungal communities do respond negatively to aspects of agricultural management, and list evidence for their positive effects to agronomically important traits, including yield in cereals. In our final argument, we advocate for transitioning to agroecosystems that are more AM compatible in order to increasingly take advantage of all the potential services these ancient symbionts, and other soil biota, can provide.
Crops, Agricultural, agroecosystems, Farmers, mycorrhiza, sustainability, yield, Mycorrhizae, Taverne, Humans, SDG 2 - Zero Hunger, Symbiosis, management
Crops, Agricultural, agroecosystems, Farmers, mycorrhiza, sustainability, yield, Mycorrhizae, Taverne, Humans, SDG 2 - Zero Hunger, Symbiosis, management
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 205 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 0.1% |
| views | 4 | |
| downloads | 29 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts