Mycorrhizal fungi are some of the most important partners a plant has. They colonize roots and are closely tied to how crops access nutrients, which is why phosphorus levels come up so often in this research. So it makes sense that products promising to add these fungi to your soil sell well, with one secondary estimate putting the market for arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) inoculants at close to a billion dollars.
The problem is not the biology. The problem is what is inside the bag. Independent researchers on several continents have now tested commercial products side by side, and the same pattern keeps appearing: many products contain few or no viable fungi, and field benefits are inconsistent.
This post walks through the key study, Salomon et al. 2022, the reviews that followed, when inoculation is most likely to work, and how to test a product before you spend real money on it.
Key takeaways
- In a global test of 28 commercial AM inoculants (Salomon et al. 2022), 84% produced no mycorrhizal root colonization at all in sterilized soil.
- In non-sterilized soil, the products did not raise colonization above uninoculated controls, and plant biomass rose in only 1 of 25 treatments.
- A lab-cultured reference fungus colonized 48–79% of roots, so the test method could detect fungi when they were present and alive.
- Later reviews and product assessments point the same way, and one 2024 assessment also reported pathogen contamination in some products.
- Inoculation is most likely to help in disturbed, sterilized or low-phosphorus media, and only with a product shown to be viable.
- Field soils usually have an existing fungal community, and in field tests results depended on it. Protecting what you have may matter more than adding more.
The study at the center: Salomon et al. 2022
The most detailed independent test to date is "Global evaluation of commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculants under greenhouse and field conditions", published in Applied Soil Ecology in 2022. The team bought and tested 28 commercial AM inoculants from three continents.
What they found
| Test condition | Result |
|---|---|
| Sterilized soil, colonization | 84% of inoculants led to no mycorrhizal root colonization at all |
| Sterilized soil, plant biomass | Biomass increased with 5 of 25 products |
| Non-sterilized soil, colonization | No increase in colonization over uninoculated controls |
| Non-sterilized soil, plant biomass | Biomass increased in only 1 of 25 treatments |
| Lab-cultured reference (Rhizophagus irregularis) | 48–79% root colonization |
| Field trials | Outcomes varied and depended on shifts in the existing fungal community |
Why the design matters
Two details make these results hard to dismiss.
First, the sterilized-soil test is the easiest possible case for a product. With no native fungi competing, any living inoculum should colonize roots. When most products failed even there, the most likely explanation is that the fungi in them were not viable, or were not present in useful amounts.
Second, the reference fungus worked. A lab-cultured Rhizophagus irregularis reached 48–79% root colonization under the same conditions. That shows the plants and methods could support colonization; the commercial products were the weak link.
The authors called for standardized quality control across the industry. A related paper in iScience proposed a quality management framework for commercial AM inoculants in July 2022.
What the wider evidence says
Salomon 2022 is not a lone result. Several later papers look at the same question from different angles.
Meta-analysis: "commercial inoculants fall short"
Koziol, McKenna and Bever published a meta-analysis in New Phytologist (online November 2024) titled "Meta-analysis reveals globally sourced commercial mycorrhizal inoculants fall short". A secondary summary on the MycoStories blog reports that it analyzed 302 trials and found fewer than 12% of commercial products showed both a growth benefit and viable colonization, while lab-produced inoculants gave positive results in 63% of trials. We have not checked these figures against the paper itself, so treat them as reported rather than confirmed. The direction, stated in the paper's own title, matches Salomon 2022.
Product assessments from 2024 and 2025
- A 2024 Applied Soil Ecology study, "An assessment of twenty-three mycorrhizal inoculants", reports in its title limited viability of AM fungi, pathogen contamination, and a negative microbial effect on crop growth for commercial products.
- Boussageon and colleagues' 2025 paper, "Poor Quality of Commercial Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Inoculants Used for Agriculture and Home Gardening", extends the concern to garden products.
The researchers are not anti-inoculant
It would be wrong to read this research as proof that mycorrhizal fungi don't matter. Salomon and colleagues followed up in 2025 with a New Phytologist paper on realising the promise of AM fungal biofertilisers through more applied research. The message is that the fungi have real potential, but the products and the field evidence need to catch up.
Why regulation hasn't solved this
In the United States, the Plant Biostimulant Act of 2025 (H.R.3783, with a Senate companion, S.1907) would amend federal pesticide law so biostimulants are not regulated as "plant regulators" and would require a USDA study on uniform definitions and labeling. As of September 2026, we could not confirm the bills had passed, so check Congress.gov for current status.
The European Union's Fertilising Products Regulation reportedly allows only a few microbial genera, mycorrhizal fungi among them, in CE-marked biostimulant products, and defines those products by their claimed function. Neither system, as described in our research, guarantees that the fungi in a given bag are alive when you open it.
When inoculation is most likely to help
Independent tests suggest inoculation works best under specific conditions, with products shown to be viable.
More likely to be worth testing:
- Sterilized or soilless potting and transplant media
- Heavily disturbed soils with little native fungal life
- Low-phosphorus growing media or soils
- Situations where you can confirm the product's viability
Less likely to pay off:
- Field soils with healthy native mycorrhizal communities, where products in Salomon 2022 did not beat uninoculated controls
- High-phosphorus soils or media
- Products with no viability data, no stated species, or only testimonials as evidence
A buyer's checklist for mycorrhizal products
Before you buy, ask the supplier for answers in writing:
- Which species are in the product? The label should name them.
- How many viable propagules per unit, and how was that measured? "Contains mycorrhizae" is not enough.
- When was the batch produced and tested? Ask for a batch-specific result, not a one-time sample.
- Has the product been tested by an independent lab or university? Ask for the report.
- Has it been screened for pathogens or contaminants? A 2024 assessment found contamination in some products.
- What field trials support the claim, on crops and soils like yours? Look for replicated trials with untreated controls.
- Is it allowed in organic production? Check OMRI or state listings and confirm with your certifier.
- What storage conditions does it need? A product that depends on living fungi needs clear storage and shelf-life guidance.
Test it yourself
- Set aside paired treated and untreated rows, trays or beds, repeated several times.
- Keep everything else the same: variety, media, fertility and irrigation.
- Compare plant growth and yield, and ask your extension office or a lab about checking root colonization.
- Only scale up if you see a consistent difference.
What to do next
- Protect the fungi you already have. Field results in Salomon 2022 depended on the existing fungal community in the soil.
- Save inoculants for where they make sense: sterilized media, disturbed ground and low-phosphorus conditions.
- Demand viability data before buying, and walk away from products that can't provide it.
- Run a small side-by-side trial before treating a whole field.
- Check organic status with your certifier.
- Share your results with your extension office. Farmer trial data helps everyone.
Sources
- Global evaluation of commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculants under greenhouse and field conditions — Applied Soil Ecology, ScienceDirect (2022)
- Establishing a quality management framework for commercial inoculants containing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi — iScience, Cell Press (July 2022)
- Meta-analysis reveals globally sourced commercial mycorrhizal inoculants fall short — New Phytologist, Wiley (online November 2024)
- Commercial Mycorrhizal Inoculants: A Billion-Dollar Industry Falling Short — MycoStories (date not confirmed)
- An assessment of twenty-three mycorrhizal inoculants reveals limited viability of AM fungi, pathogen contamination, and negative microbial effect on crop growth for commercial products — Applied Soil Ecology, ScienceDirect (2024)
- Poor Quality of Commercial Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Inoculants Used for Agriculture and Home Gardening — Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Environment, Wiley (2025)
- Realising the promise of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal biofertilisers through more applied research — New Phytologist, via PubMed (2025)
- H.R.3783, Plant Biostimulant Act of 2025 — Congress.gov (2025)
- S.1907, Plant Biostimulant Act of 2025 (text) — Congress.gov (2025)