Plant and Soil

, Volume 104, Issue 1, pp 113–120 | Cite as

Distribution of spore-positive and spore-negative nodules ofMyrica gale in Maine, USA

  • Catherine R. Kashanski
  • Christa R. Schwintzer
Article

Abstract

The distribution of spore-positive and spore-negative root nodules ofMyrica gale L. was investigated at 34 sites throughout Maine. the sites represented a wide range of environmental conditions, including soils from organic to sand, soil pH from 3.1 to 6.4, elevations from 3 to 529 m, and average number of frost-free days per year from 80 to 162. Habitats included peatlands, streamsides and lakeshores.

Spore(−) nodules dominated with 61% of the nodules examined sp(−) and 39% sp(+). Two sites were 100% sp(+), 7 sites were 100% sp(−) and the remaining 25 sites had varying proportions of both types. Overall, sp(+) and mixed sites dominated in the southern interior and coastal regions, areas with lower elevations and longer growing seasons. Spore(−) sites were located primarily in northern and western Maine, areas with higher elevations and shorter growing seasons. In all habitats occurrence of spore(+) modules was positively correlated with the average number of frost-free days per year (r=0.57 for peatlands, r=0.71 for lakeshores and streamsides). In addition, at the 21 lakeshore and streamside sites occurrence of sp(+) nodules was also positively correlated with percent organic matter in the soil (r=0.56) and negatively correlated with pH (r=−0.60). Within mixed sites sp(+) and sp(−) nodules were distribated randomly and were often closely intermingled.

Key words

actinorhizal plants Frankia Myrica gale nitrogen fixation root nodules spore-negative spore-positive 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Black C A, Evans D D, White J L, Ensminger L E, Clark F E (eds). 1965 Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin. pp 562–564.Google Scholar
  2. Brady N C 1984 The Nature and Properties of Soils. 9th edition. Macmillan Publishing Co., New York. 750 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Burggraaf A J P, Quispel A, Tak T and Valstar J 1981 Methods of isolation and cultivation ofFrankia species from actinorhizas. Plant and Soil 61, 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooper G R and Lautzenheiser R E 1969 Freezes in Maine. Maine Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 679. University of Maine, Orono.Google Scholar
  5. Davis M B 1958 Three pollen diagrams from central Massachusetts. Amer. J. Sci. 256, 540–570.Google Scholar
  6. Geiger R 1966 The Climate Near the Ground. Harvard Univ. Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 611 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Holman R M and Schwintzer C R 1987 The distribution of spore-positive and spore-negative nodules ofAlnus incana ssp.rugosa in Maine, USA. Plant and Soil 104, 103–111.Google Scholar
  8. Kashanski C R 1986 The distribution of spore-positive and spore-negative nodules ofMyrica gale L. in Maine. MS thesis. University of Maine, Orono. 78 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Lautzenheiser R E 1972 The climate of Maine.In Climates of the States. Vol. 1 U.S.D.C. NOAA, Washington, D.C. pp 136–152.Google Scholar
  10. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1969–1985. Climatological Data Annual Summary New England. ISSN 0364-5339 U.S.D.C., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Normand P and Lalonde M 1982 Evaluation ofFrankia strains isolated from provenances of twoAlnus species. Can. J. Microbiol. 28, 1133–1142.Google Scholar
  12. Runyon R P 1977 Nonparametric Statistics: a Contemporary Approach. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Reading, Massachusetts. 218 pp.Google Scholar
  13. SAS Institute Inc 1982 SAS User's Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, North Carolina. 584 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Schwintzer C R 1985 Effect of spring flooding on endophyte differentiation, nitrogenase activity, root growth and shoot growth inMyrica gale. Plant and Soil 87, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stuiver M and Borns HW Jr 1975 Alate quaternary marine invasion in Maine: its chronology and associated crustal movement. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 86, 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Thompson W B and Borns H W Jr 1985 Surficial Geological Map of Maine. Maine Geological Survey, Augusta.Google Scholar
  17. Tjepkema J D, Schwintzer C R and Benson D R 1986 Physiology of actinorhizal nodules. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 37, 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Torrey J G 1987 Endophyte sporulation in root nodules of actinorhizal plants. Physiol. Plant. (In press).Google Scholar
  19. VandenBosch K A and Torrey J G 1984 Consequences of sporangial development for nodule function in root noduless ofComptonia peregrina andMyrica gale. Plant Physiol. 76, 556–560.Google Scholar
  20. VandenBosch K A and Torrey J G 1985 Development of endophyticFrankia sporangia in field- and laboratory-grown nodules ofComptonia peregrina andMyrica gale. Am. J. Bot. 72, 99–108.Google Scholar
  21. van Dijk C 1978 Spore formation and endophyte diversity in root nodules ofAlnus glutinosa (L.) Vill. New Phytol. 81, 601–615.Google Scholar
  22. van Dijk C 1984 Ecological Aspects of Spore Formation in Actinorhizal Root Nodules ofAlnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertner. PhD thesis. State University, Leiden, The Netherlands. 154 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Weber A 1986 Distribution of spore-positive and spore-negative nodules in stands ofAlnus glutinosa andAlnus incana in Finland. Plant and Soil 96, 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine R. Kashanski
    • 1
  • Christa R. Schwintzer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Botany and Plant PathologyUniversity of MaineOronoUSA

Personalised recommendations