Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 96, Issue 1–4, pp 233–248 | Cite as

Influence of a mycorrhizal fungus and/or rhizobium on growth and biomass partitioning of subterranean clover exposed to ozone

  • Joseph E. Miller
  • Steven R. Shafer
  • Michele M. Schoeneberger
  • Walter A. Pursley
  • Stephanie J. Horton
  • Charles B. Davey
Article

Abstract

The influence of soilborne symbionts such as rhizobia or mycorrhizal fungi on plant response to ozone (O3) has not been well defined. Leguminous plants in the field are infected by both types of organisms, which influence plant nutrition and growth. We studied the effects of infection withRhizobium leguminosarum biovartrifolii and/orGigaspora margarita on response of subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum L. cv Mt. Barker) to O3. Exposures were conducted in greenhouse CSTR chambers using four O3 concentrations [charcoal-filtered (CF), 50, 100, or 150 ppb; 6 h day−1, 5 day wk−1 for 12 weeks] as main plots (replicated). Four inoculum types were subplot treatments, i.e., inoculated with one, both, or neither microorganisms. At 2-wk intervals, plants were exposed to14CO2 and harvested 24 h later for determination of biomass and14C content of shoots and roots. Ozone at 100 or 150 ppb suppressed clover growth during the experiment. Inoculation withG. margarita alone suppressed clover growth by the last two harvests, whereasR. leguminosarum alone enhanced growth during this time period. When both symbionts were present, the plants grew similarly to the noninoculated controls. Shoot/root ratios were increased by 100 or 150 ppb O3 compared to that for CF-treated plants. Shoot/root ratios were greater for all inoculated plants compared to noninoculated controls. Under low O3 stress (CF or 50 ppb), plants inoculated with bothR. leguminosarum andG. margarita transported a greater proportion of recent photosynthate (14C) to roots than did noninoculated plants; we attribute this to metabolic requirements of the microorganisms. At the highest level of O3 stress (150 ppb), this did not occur, probably because little photosynthate was available and the shoots retained most of it for repair of injury. Statistically significant interactions occurred between O3 and inoculum types for shoot and total biomass. When averaged across harvests, 50 ppb O3 suppressed biomass in the plants inoculated withG. margarita alone. Apparently, the mycorrhizal fungus is such a significant C drain that even a small amount of O3 stress suppresses plant growth under these conditions.

Key words

rhizobia VAM 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alscher, R. G. and Wellburn, A. R. (eds.): 1994,Plant Responses to the Gaseous Environment, Chapman and Hall, London, U.K.Google Scholar
  2. Bethlenfalvay, G. J., Brown, M. S. and Pakovsky, R. S.: 1982,Phytopathology 72, 889–893.Google Scholar
  3. Box, G. E. P. and Cox, D. R.: 1964,J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 26, 211–243.Google Scholar
  4. Brewer, P. F. and Heagle, A. S.: 1983,Phytopathology 73, 1035–1040.Google Scholar
  5. Cooley, D. R. and Manning, W. J.: 1987,Environ. Pollut. 47, 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flagler, R. B., Patterson, R. P., Heagle, A. S. and Heck, W. W.: 1987,Crop Sci. 27, 1177–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heck, W. W., Philbeck, R. B. and Dunning, J. A.: 1978,Agricultural Research Service, Series No. ARS-S-181, pp. 32.Google Scholar
  8. McCool, P. M. and Menge, J. A.: 1983,New Phytol. 94, 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McCool, P. M. and Menge, J. A.: 1984,Soil Biol. Biochem. 16, 425–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Miller, J. E.: 1988, in Heck, W. W., Taylor, O. C. and Tingey, D. T. (eds.),Assessment of Crop Loss From Air Pollutants, Elsevier Science Publishers, London, U.K., pp. 287–314.Google Scholar
  11. Modjo, H. S. and Hendrix, J. W.: 1986,Phytopathology 76, 688–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Montes, R. A., Blum, U., Heagle, A. and Volk, R. J.: 1983,Can. J. Bot. 61, 2159–2168.Google Scholar
  13. Rawlings, J. O.: 1988,Applied Regression Analysis: A Research Tool, Wadsworth and Brooks, Pacific Grove, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Safir, G. R.: 1994, in Pfleger, F. L. and Linderman, R. G. (eds.),Mycorrhizae and Plant Health, APS Press, St. Paul, MN, pp. 239–259.Google Scholar
  15. SAS Institute, Inc.: 1988,SAS/AF User's Guide:Version 6.03 Edition, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  16. Shafer, S. R. and Schoeneberger, M. M.: 1991a,Environ. Pollut. 73, 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shafer, S. R. and Schoeneberger, M. M.: 1991b, in Keister, D. L. and Creagan, P. B. (eds.),The Rhizosphere and Plant Growth, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp. 377.Google Scholar
  18. Tingey, D. T. and Blum, U.: 1973,J. Environ. Qual. 2: 341–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vincent, J. M.: 1970,A Manual for the Practical Study of Root-Nodule Bacteria, International Biological Program Handbook 15. Blackwell Scientific Publication, Ltd., Oxford. p. 164.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph E. Miller
    • 1
  • Steven R. Shafer
    • 2
  • Michele M. Schoeneberger
    • 3
  • Walter A. Pursley
    • 4
  • Stephanie J. Horton
    • 5
  • Charles B. Davey
    • 6
  1. 1.USDA-ARS Air Quality Program, Department of Crop ScienceUniv. of NebraskaLincoln
  2. 2.USDA-ARS Air Quality Program, Department of Plant PathologyUniv. of NebraskaLincoln
  3. 3.USDA-FSUniv. of NebraskaLincoln
  4. 4.Department of Crop ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  5. 5.Department of Plant PathologyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  6. 6.Department of ForestryNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations