## Article
### Mineral Elements Concentration and Accumulation of S. miltiorrhiza Seedlings  
Compared to CK, inoculation with AMFs significantly decreased N concentration in leaves and roots of _S. miltiorrhiza_ seedlings. There was no significant difference of N concentration in roots among the four AMFs inoculation treatments; however, _G.a_ treatment had a significantly higher N concentration in leaves than the _G.i_ treatment. Furthermore, in both leaves and roots of seedlings with non-AMF, the N accumulation was significantly lower than those with AMFs inoculation. Moreover, in both leaves and roots, N accumulation among the four AMFs treatments was statistically different. The _G.a_ treatment had the highest N accumulation in leaves, which was significantly higher than _G.m_ and _G.v_ treatments. N accumulation in roots with _G.a_ inoculation was significantly higher than other treatments (Table 5). Inoculation with AMFs increased the P concentration in leaves significantly, but inoculation with _G.v_ and _G.i_ decreased the P concentration in roots. Even so, inoculation with the four AMFs remarkably enhanced the P accumulation, both in leaves and roots. The P accumulation was in order of _G.v_\(>\) _G.i_\(>\) _G.m_\(>\) _G.a_ in leaves; and _G.v_\(>\) _G.a_\(>\) _G.m_\(>\) _G.i_ in roots (Table 5). In spite of K concentrations in leaves and roots with AMFs, inoculation was not significantly higher than CK, even in roots' K concentration of inoculation with _G.v_. Furthermore, _G.a_ was lower than CK, but inoculation with AMFs could notably enhance K accumulation in leaves and roots. Effects of the four AMFs for \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Treatment**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Leaf Weight** \\ **(g/Plant, _DW_)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Root**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Total Weight** \\ **(g/Plant, _DW_)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Root/Shoot** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **AMF** \\ **Ratio** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Dependency (\%)** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline CK & 1.83 \(\pm\) 0.57 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 1.33 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 18.62 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 3.16 \(\pm\) 0.59 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.77 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & - \\ _G.m_ & 2.47 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 2.11 \(\pm\) 0.44 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 19.80 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.57 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.86 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 144.62 \\ _G.v_ & 2.85 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.04 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 21.62 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.89 \(\pm\) 0.39 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.07 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 186.39 \\ _G.a_ & 2.79 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.22 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 20.48 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 5.01 \(\pm\) 0.32 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.79 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 158.54 \\ _G.i_ & 3.03 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.62 \(\pm\) 0.72 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 21.13 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.65 \(\pm\) 0.87 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.86 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 178.80 \\ \hline \end{tabular} CK means with non-AMF inoculation; _G.v._ means inoculation with AM fungus _Glamus respiferom; G.i._ means inoculation with AM fungus _Glamus respiferom; G.i._ means inoculation with AM fungus _Glamus respiferom; G.m._ means inoculation with AM fungus _Glamus impassive._ DW means dry weight. Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences at 0.05 level. Data are means \(\pm\) SD (\(n=5\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Effect of AMFs inoculation on biomass of _S. miltiorrhiza_ seedlings.