Plant and Soil

, Volume 103, Issue 2, pp 295–298 | Cite as

Influence of plant genotype on mycorrhizal infection: Response of three pea cultivars

  • V. Estaún
  • C. Calvet
  • D. S. Hayman
Short Communications


Three leafless pea cultivars (JI 1198, BS 142 and BS 4) with the same phenotype and similar patterns of development, were tested in a sterilized low-phosphate soil for their response to phosphate fertilizer and to vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) infection by threeGlomus species. Cultivar JI 1198 was very responsive to phosphate but not to inoculation withGlomus mosseae, Glomus caledonium orGlomus epigaeum. Phosphate and VAM treatments increased growth of cultivar BS 142 but were ineffective with cultivar BS 4.

Fungal infectivity could not be related with endophyte effectiveness at stimulating plant growth, although the percentage of root length infected by each one of the threeGlomus species did not vary between cultivars. Genetic differences among plant cultivars can thus markedly affect the symbiosis between the host root and VAM fungi; this suggests that potential host-endophyte combinations need to be evaluated before being tested in the field.

Key words

Glomus pea cultivars Pisum plant genotype vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Azcón R and Ocampo H A 1981 New Phytol. 87, 677–685.Google Scholar
  2. Baylis J T S 1975In Endomycorrhizas. Ed. F E Sanders,et al. pp 391–407. Academic Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
  3. Bertheau Yet al. 1980. Ann. Amélioration Plantes 30, 67–68.Google Scholar
  4. Clark R B 1983 Plant and Soil 72, 175–196.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke C and Mosse B 1981 New Phytol. 87, 695–703.Google Scholar
  6. Giovanetti M and Mosse B 1980 New Phytol. 84, 489–500.Google Scholar
  7. Hall I R 1978 NZ J. Agric. Res. 21, 517–519.Google Scholar
  8. Hayman D S and Tavares M C D 1985 New Phytol. 100, 367–377.Google Scholar
  9. Krishna K Ret al. 1985 Plant and Soil 86, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Menge J Aet al. 1978 New Phytol. 81, 533–559.Google Scholar
  11. Nemec S 1978 Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 91, 10–14.Google Scholar
  12. Nielsen N E and Schjørring J K 1983 Plant and Soil 72, 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ollivier Bet al. 1983 Can J. Bot. 61, 354–358.Google Scholar
  14. Olsen S Ret al. 1954 US Dep. Agric. Circ. No. 939, pp. 19.Google Scholar
  15. Owusu-Bennoah E and Mosse B 1979 New Phytol. 83, 671–679.Google Scholar
  16. Phillips J M and Hayman D S 1970 Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 55, 158–161.Google Scholar
  17. Trappe J M 1982 Phytopathol. 72, 1102–1108.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Estaún
    • 1
  • C. Calvet
    • 1
  • D. S. Hayman
    • 1
  1. 1.Soil Microbiology DepartmentRothamsted Experimental StationHarpendenUK

Personalised recommendations