Table 1.

Synthesis of previously published literature on the effects of experimentally manipulated light intensities on the mycorrhizal growth response (MGR).

No.	Plant species	AM species	PPFD (μmol m−2 s−1)	Shading duration (days)	MGR	Effect of light		References
						MGR	% col.
1	Lycopersicum esculentum	G. intraradices	600, 225	22	−	+	+	Marschner and Timonen, 2005
2	Glycine max1	G. fasciculatum	700, 350, 170	80	+	+	+	Bethlenfalvay and Pacovsky, 1983
3	Trifolium subterraneum1	G. mosseae	450, 100	42	+	+	0	Tester et al., 1985a
4	Allium cepa	“Endogone”	(430, 224)b	70	+	+	0	Hayman, 1974
5	Allium cepa	G. mosseae	550/600, 250	14, 28, 42, 56	+	+	0	Son and Smith, 1988c
6	Allium cepa	G. mosseae	410, 190	42	+	+	0	Smith and Gianinazzi-Pearson, 1990c
7	Allium vineale	C. candidum	1339, 662	28, 42, 56	+	+	?	Zheng et al., 2015
8	Acmena resa2	field AM fungi	157, 54	180	+	+	0	Gehring, 2003
9	Dicorynia guianensis2	field soil	[sun 50%, 14%, 1%]	350	+	+	±	Bereau et al., 2000
10	Persea americana2	G. intraradices	1250, 125	180	+	+	0	Violi et al., 2007
11	Sorghum vulgare4	G. fasciculatum	418, 308, 204	35	+	+	0/+d	Graham et al., 1982c
12	Andropogon gerardii4	field soil	618−1047, 66%, 33%	98	+	+/±e	+	Johnson et al., 2015c
13	Allium porrum	G. mosseae	515, 250	14, 28, 42, 56	+∕−d	(+∕−)d, f	0	Pearson et al., 1991
14	Pisum sativum1	G. mosseae	390, 190	35	−	−	+	Reinhard et al., 1993
15	Trifolium subterraneum1	G. intraradices	270, 68	14	−	0	+	Olsson et al., 2010
16	Elymus repens3	field soil	[glasshouse, 70%]	84	−	0	+	Grman, 2012
17	Bromus inermis3	field soil	[glasshouse, 70%]	84	−	0	0	Grman, 2012
18	Schizachyrium scoparium4	field soil	[glasshouse, 70%]	84	+	0	0	Grman, 2012
19	Zea mays4	G. mosseae	(119, 90, 30.5)b	60	+	0	+	Daft and El-Giahmi, 1978
20	Triticum aestivum3	Gi. margarita	325−1025, 72−262	42, 112	+	0	0	Stonor et al., 2014
21	Flindersia brayleana2	field AM fungi	157, 54	180	+	0	0	Gehring, 2003
22	Vitis vinifera	mix of 3 species	1100, 500	111	+	0	−	Schreiner and Pinkerton, 2008
23	Allium cepa	Gi. calospora	(344, 258, 172, 86)b	20, 40, 60, 80, 100	+	Variedg	−	Furlan and Fortin, 1977

Since not all publications provided explicitly calculated MGR values, the MGR responses referred to here as positive (+) or negative (−) means any significant difference between the biomass of the mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal plants for a given experimental treatment. The effects of light intensity on MGR and on root length colonized by arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi (% col.) are shown. “+”, positive effect; “−”, negative effect; “0”, absence of a significant effect; “±”, unimodal response, i.e., a significant peak at the medium light intensity. “G”, Glomus; “C”, Claroideoglomus; “Gi”, Gigaspora. Species names are reported as in the original literature. PPFD, photosynthetic photon flux density.

¹legume,

²tree,

³C3 grass,

⁴C4 grass.

^aThe lowest light treatment omitted because of no AM fungal colonization.

^bFigures roughly converted from lux or W m⁻².

^cThe highest P level omitted because of no MGR at any light level.

^dlow P/high P.

^eKonza soil/Fermi soil.

^fThe effect of light on the MGR not specifically elaborated in the paper.

^gEffect varied with time. Day 100: Peak at 10 klux.