Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:48:37.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Epidemiology’ of sheathing (ecto-) mycorrhizas in unsterile soils: a case study of Betula pendula

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

F. T. Last ,
P. A. Mason ,
J. Wilson ,
K. Ingleby ,
R. C. Munro ,
L. V. Fleming  and
J. W. Deacon
F. T. Last
Affiliation:
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 OQB
P. A. Mason
Affiliation:
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 OQB
J. Wilson
Affiliation:
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 OQB
K. Ingleby
Affiliation:
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 OQB
R. C. Munro
Affiliation:
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 OQB
L. V. Fleming
Affiliation:
Microbiology Department, School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
J. W. Deacon
Affiliation:
Microbiology Department, School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Synopsis

Sequential observations were made of the effects on root development of inoculating Betula pendula seedlings during propagation with sheathing mycorrhizal fungi, Amanita muscaria, Hebeloma sacchariolens or Paxillus involutus. After propagation, the seedlings were grown for two seasons in four different soils (two mineral soils and two peats) which were not sterilised.

While all inoculated seedlings had similar numbers of mycorrhizas at planting, numbers subsequently increased most rapidly with P. involutus and least rapidly with A. muscaria. From the end of the first season onwards, the uninoculated controls had as many mycorrhizas as seedlings inoculated with either A. muscaria or H. sacchariolens. These numbers were, however, usually exceeded on plants inoculated with P. involutus.

The mycorrhizas developing on the controls, and on seedlings inoculated with A. muscaria, were attributable after planting into the unsterile soils, to naturally occurring soil-borne inocula of species of Cenococcum, Hebeloma, Inocybe, Laccaria, Paxillus and Thelephora etc. Those developing on seedlings inoculated with P. involutus were all attributable to this inoculant fungus in the first year but, in the second year, the proportions decreased to 19—14%. With H. sacchariolens, at least 90% of the mycorrhizas in the two mineral soils and one of the peats (a sedge peat) were attributable in years 1 and 2 to the inoculant fungus. In the other peat (Sphagnum peat), the proportion of mycorrhizas attributable to H. sacchariolens decreased to 25% by the end of the first year and totally disappeared in the second.

The continued ability of H. sacchariolensto form mycorrhizas in a range of unsterile soils, to the virtual exclusion of mycorrhizas attributable to other fungi, is thought to be characteristic of fungi that occur early in mycorrhizal successions. In contrast,A. muscaria(a late-stage fungus), was unable to form mycorrhizas after inoculated seedlings were transferred from controlled axenic conditions to unsterilised field soils.

Two arbiters of root growth were measured—numbers of roots and their dry weights. Whereas inoculations with H. sacchariolens significantly decreased numbers in the latter part of the first season, they either had no effects on dry weights as in the mineral soils or significantly increased them as in the peats. In the second season, there was further evidence, sometimes contradictory, showing that inoculations can appreciably alter the structure of developing root systems.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 85 , Issue 3-4: Symbiosis and Plant Nutrition , 1985 , pp. 299 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bowen, G. D. and Theodorou, C. 1979. Interactions between bacteria and ectomycorrhizal fungi. Soil Biol. Biochem. 11, 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu-Chou, M. 1979. Mycorrhizal fungi of Pinus radiata in New Zealand. Soil Biol. Biochem. 11, 557–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu-Chou, M. and Grace, L. J. 1981. Mycorrhizal fungi of Pseudotsuga menziesii in the North Island of New Zealand. Soil Biol. Biochem. 13, 247–249.Google Scholar
Chu-Chou, M. and Grace, L. J. 1983. Characterization and identification of mycorrhizas of Douglas fir in New Zealand. Eur. J. Forest Pathol. 13, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielson, R. M., Visser, S. and Parkinson, D. 1984a. Production of ectomycorrhizae on container-grown Jack pine seedlings. Can. J. For. Res. 14, 33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielson, R. M., Visser, S. and Parkinson, D. 1984b. The effectiveness of mycelial slurries of mycorrhizal fungi for the inoculation of container-grown Jack pine seedlings. Can. J. For. Res. 14, 140–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, J. W., Donaldson, S. J. and Last, F. T. 1983. Sequences and interactions of mycorrhizal fungi on birch. Pl. soil 71, 257–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, L. V. 1983. Establishment, persistence and spread of sheathing mycorrhizal fungi on roots of birch (Betula spp.). Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Fleming, L. V. 1984. Effects of soil trenching and coring on the formation of ectomycorrhizas on birch seedlings grown around mature trees. New Phytol. 98, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, F. M. 1983a. Role of basidiospores as inocula of mycorrhizal fungi of birch. Pl. Soil 71, 269–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, F. M. 1983b. Sources of inoculum of sheating mycorrhizal fungi of birch (Betula spp.). Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Frankland, J. C. 1981. Mechanisms in fungal successions. In The Fungal Community: Its Organisation and Role in the Ecosystem, ed. Wicklow, D. T. and Carroll, G. C., pp. 403–426. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Giltrap, N. J. 1979. Experimental studies on the establishment and stability of ectomycorrhizas. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Harley, J. L. and Smith, S. E. 1983. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ingestad, T. 1971. A definition of optimum nutrient requirements in birch seedlings. II. Physiologia Pl. 24 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, R. J. 1979. Factors responsible for the distribution of mycorrhizas of Pinus in eastern Australia. Aust. For. Res. 9, 25–34.Google Scholar
Last, F. T., Mason, P. A., Wilson, J. and Deacon, J. W. 1983. Fine roots and sheathing mycorrhizas: their formation, function and dynamics. Pl. Soil 71, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Last, F. T., Mason, P. A., Pelham, J. and Ingleby, K. 1984. Fruitbody production by sheathing mycorrihzal fungi: effects of ‘host’ genotypes and propogating soils. For. Ecol. Mgmt 9, 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, G. C. and Foster, R. C. 1967. Succession of mycorrhizal associations on individual roots of Radiata pine. Aust. For. 31, 193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markx, G. C. and Foster, R. C. 1967. Succession of mycorrhizal associations on individual roots of Radiata pine. Aust. For. 31, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, D. H. 1980. Ectomycorrhizal fungus inoculations: a tool for improving forestation practices. In Tropical Mycorrhiza Research, ed. Mikola, P., pp. 13–71. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mason, P. A. 1980. Aseptic synthesis of sheathing (ecto-) mycorrhizas. In Tissue Culture Methods for Plant Pathologists, ed. Ingram, D. S. and Helgeson, J. P., pp. 173–178. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mason, P. A., Last, F. T., Pelham, J. and Ingleby, K. 1982. Ecology of some fungi associated with an ageing stand of birches (Betula pendula and B. pubescens). For. Ecol. Mgmt 4, 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, P. A., Dighton, J., Last, F. T. and Wilson, J. 1983a. Procedure for establishing sheathing mycorrhizas on tree seedlings. For. Ecol. Mgmt 5, 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, P. A., Wilson, J., Last, F. T. and Walker, C. 1983b. The concept of succession in relation to the spread of sheathing mycorrhizal fungi on inoculated tree seedlings growing in unsterile soils. Pl. Soil 71, 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikola, P. 1973. Application of mycorrhizal symbiosis in forestry practice. In Ectomycorrhizae: Their Ecology and Physiology, ed. Marks, G. C. and Kozlowski, T. T., pp. 383–411. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molina, R. and Trappe, J. M. 1982. Applied aspects of ectomycorrhizae. In Advances in Agricultural Microbiology, ed. Subba Rao, N. S., pp. 305–324. London: Butterworth Scientific.Google Scholar
Mosse, B., Stribley, D. P. and LeTacon, F. 1981. Ecology of mycorrhizae and mycorrhizal fungi. In Advances in Microbiol Ecology, ed. Alexander, M., Vol. 5, pp. 137–210. New York and London: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelham, J. and Mason, P. A. 1978. Aseptic cultivation of sapling trees for studies of nutrient responses with particular reference to phosphate. Ann. Appl. Biol. 88, 415–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar